Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.
Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages), other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Good voting practices

[edit]
  1. Do not have an image moved to consensual review ("Discuss") unless someone else added a vote with which you disagree.
  2. If you think the image meets QI criteria, use "Promotion" right away.
  3. If you think the image does not meet QI criteria and the issues cannot be solved, use "Decline" right away.
  4. If instead you believe that the issues can be solved, leave a comment without changing the status (keep it as Nomination).
  5. Do not add new votes under already promoted or declined images if you agree with the decision. The bot checks the date of the last comment, so this only delays the result.
  6. If a comment raises an unresolved issue, promoting is generally considered impolite. Only promote if the issue is clearly minor, fixed, or incorrect - and say so briefly. If you’re not sure, add a comment (don't change status). Change to "Discuss" only once conflicting votes appear.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2026.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2026.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 09 2026 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 06:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

If you are not ready to Promote or Decline an image, you may leave a Comment instead.

If someone else has already promoted or declined an image and you disagree, you may cast an opposite voice or use Discuss — this will move the image to the Community Review section.

If you agree with a previous decision, there is no need to cast the same vote again, as doing so only delays the final closure of the nomination.

Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


January 9, 2026

[edit]

January 8, 2026

[edit]

January 7, 2026

[edit]

January 6, 2026

[edit]

January 5, 2026

[edit]

January 4, 2026

[edit]

January 3, 2026

[edit]

January 2, 2026

[edit]

January 1, 2026

[edit]

December 31, 2025

[edit]

December 30, 2025

[edit]

December 29, 2025

[edit]

December 27, 2025

[edit]

December 24, 2025

[edit]

December 19, 2025

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Venice,_Italy_(2025)_-_279.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rio della Verona, Venice, Italy --Another Believer 20:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality --Michielverbeek 20:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Purple fringing on the centre left buildings roof and many blown out highlights on buildings in the background. --Augustgeyler 21:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Chorzów_Siemianowicka_46_attic_2020.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chorzów, Siemianowicka 46, attic --Gower 19:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overexposed --Jacek Halicki 20:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
    It's not overexposed, rather underexposed --Gower 05:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2020_Kłodzko,_ul._Hirschfeldera_2_(7).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hirszfeldera Street in Kłodzko by User:Jacek HalickiBoston9 20:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --~~~~
     Oppose Image is good, but unsigned support is not. I'm ready to remove my opposing vote if the situation clears up. --Екатерина Борисова 04:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2020_Kłodzko,_ul._Hirschfeldera_2_(8).jpg

[edit]

File:2024_Ścinawka_Średnia,_zespół_pałacu_jezuitów_(1).jpg

[edit]

File:Ski_slopes_between_Tête_de_Bellard_and_Le_Grand_Truc,_La_Toussuire,_2023.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ski slopes, La Toussuire. --DimiTalen 09:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 09:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose IMO it's not sharp enough, and I don't understand these white dots in the foreground (reflections of the sun in snow crystals?). Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 01:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks for reviewing! The white dots are reflections of snow cristals, indeed. I can understand if sharpness isn't up to par. --DimiTalen 06:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_136_National_Museum_Modern_Art_-_Stańczyk.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stańczyk Painting by Leon Wyczółkowski --Scotch Mist 06:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Good quality, but could you add the frame and some surrounding space back? --Mike Peel 14:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
     Comment @Mike Peel: Thanks for review but my understanding of QI guidelines is that unless the frame has significance it is often better cropped so as not to distract from the artwork/detail. --Scotch Mist 10:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    I can't spot that guideline? Closest I can see is "The subject should not be cropped, unless it is only a specific part of the subject that is of interest." - but how it's displayed is also of interest. I'm happy to leave this for another reviewer if you'd prefer though. Thanks. Mike Peel 20:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    Moving to discuss to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_138_National_Museum_Modern_Art_-_Blessing_Food.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blessing Food at Easter by Włodzimierz Tetmajer --Scotch Mist 06:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Good quality, but can you recover some space around the frame, please? Otherwise it's difficult to know if it's been cut off or not. --Mike Peel 14:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
     Comment @Mike Peel: There is relevance, although minor, of this ornate frame to the artwork but revealing the light background to the frame would distract from the artwork itself, IMHO! --Scotch Mist 09:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    PS See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cropping_(image) --Scotch Mist 11:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    Moving to discuss to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Retoryka_street,_view_to_S,_bird's_eye_view_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Retoryka street, view to S, bird's eye view 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 16:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    I feel like there's strong PC left and right. The buildings and cars look distorted. --Espandero 09:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. I don't see a strong PC here. --Sebring12Hrs 17:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Espandero. Especially the cars on the right are distorted. --Augustgeyler 02:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_286_Krzysztofory_Palace_-_1848_Uprising.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 1848 Uprising Funeral Painting by Władysław Majeranowski --Scotch Mist 07:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 08:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Barrel distorsion, please discuss, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 19:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Am not sure of evidence of "barrel distortion" - the relatively poor condition of the old frame should be noted along with the apparent warping (see upper portions of painting edges revealed on both sides) - perhaps rather than manipulate the painting itself the otherwise uninteresting frame should be cropped altogether? --Scotch Mist 10:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment RawTherapee manages to correct the problem with ‘Lens correction profile’. JackyM59 17:40, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
[edit]

  • Nomination Framed 'Spring Mist' Painting by Stanisław Witkiewicz --Scotch Mist 07:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ercé 07:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft and  Level of detail too low, only frame looks somewhat OK. --Gower 08:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Gower: Perhaps the clue is in the title? --Scotch Mist 08:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • It's true that you can't read the signature and date. My photos of paintings often have the same problems. With a 3.5–6 zoom, motion blur, ISO, graininess... --JackyM59 11:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Not enough sharp to QI, but thanks for upload, I used it in Wikidata --Gower 17:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry, you opposed twice in the same evaluation. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Gower --Julian Lupyan 17:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose compared to that other image, it's clear that this one is unsharp. --Peulle 08:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Don't dispute that the painting in the image referenced, without a frame, is sharper than the framed painting image (with painting less than half of the total image area) but the unique frame itself (with presumably stylized mist droplets) is of interest suggesting the overall image should be considered accordingly - either way appreciate that others may still not view the image as sharp enough overall for QI.--Scotch Mist 16:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2020_Kłodzko,_ul._Wojska_Polskiego_1_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 1 Wojska Polskiego Street in Kłodzko 3 --Jacek Halicki 02:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 03:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The roof windows are cut. --Sebring12Hrs 08:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. Additionally borderline high level of PC leading to challenging geometry. --Augustgeyler 11:08, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Augustgeyler, thanks for your sharp eye. I didn't pay so much attention to geometry issues, but now I've looked at it more carefully and agree with you. God, just look at this downpipe... -- Екатерина Борисова 02:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2025-01-11_IBU_World_Cup_Biathlon_Oberhof_2025_STP_5071.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination IBU World Cup Biathlon Oberhof 2025: Oceane Michelon (FRA) --Stepro 23:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Eyes are out of focus --Jakubhal 05:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this assessment. I can literally count the cilias. --Stepro 17:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO it is less about focus but low detail due to intense crop. --Augustgeyler 11:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support by far sharp enough (A4 print size criterion). Regarding the crop: I'd even crop out the yellow banner/object/whatever on the right side, but that is a matter of taste, not of technical quality. --Smial 12:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 21:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Francisca_Tatchouop_Belob.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vice-président de la commission de la CEEAC. By Francisca Tatchouop Belob --Aboubacarkhoraa 19:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tobias ToMar Maier 19:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose for now. Is this really own work? The uploader has the same name as the depicted person and cross-wiki upload of this image seems to be the only visible activity of the uploader. There are two edits not displayed in the contribution list on the French Wikipedia. Who took this photo? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Ornithogalum_nutans_MHNT.BOT.2016.24.43.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination fruit of drooping star-of-Bethlehem – Fruit de Ornithogale penché --Ercé 09:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 10:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and lacking detail in subject. I cannot tell if these objects have smooth, rough, ridged or other type of surface. A still and composed studio shot like this should be really sharp and provide those details IMO. --E bailey 14:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File: Krakow 2024 213 MNK Czartoryski Museum - St Paul Mosaic.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Paul Framed Mosaic --Scotch Mist 07:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 09:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad framing and crop, and a bit blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 19:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Is your issue with the "framing and crop" the tiny level of background edging in evidence at the corners or is there a more significant fault with this aspect of the image? --Scotch Mist 10:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp even on my cheap phone --Gower 07:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 07:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:At_London_2025_945_-_Deer_at_Dawn_near_Munich_by_Eduard_Schleich.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Deer at Dawn near Munich by Eduard Schleich, at the V&A, London --Mike Peel 13:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp, too soft. Too much noise reduction ? --Sebring12Hrs 19:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Disagree - text on frame shows sharpness but red border is distracting and if the image was 'lightened' more details in the foreground would be revealed and IMO QI could be achieved.. --Scotch Mist 11:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • So go to discuss... --Sebring12Hrs 19:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed (denoising/sharpening). Everything blurred beside some high contrast details. --Smial 12:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 21:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2025-01-12_IBU_World_Cup_Biathlon_Oberhof_2025_STP_5992.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination IBU World Cup Biathlon Oberhof 2025: Maria Remenova (SVK) --Stepro 03:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Face not sharp enough, sorry --Gower 15:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the face is sharp. I can count the dots on the tongue and even see the eyes clearly through the sunglasses. --Stepro 17:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Smial 12:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Walerego Eljasza-Radzikowskiego street, view to W, Kraków, Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Walerego Eljasza-Radzikowskiego Street, view to W, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 09:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Shadows are very dark. Light balance could be improved. --E bailey 23:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info This nomination should not be at CR. There is no comment about any disagreement so far. --Augustgeyler 09:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
    • That was my mistake. Meant to select 'comment'. What next? --E bailey 14:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @E bailey: , ✓ Done --Igor123121 16:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Since it is here now we gave max. 8 days to discuss it or react to changes made by the nominator. --August (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Weak support; the thumbnail looks bad because of the light, but when looking at the full resolution, it's sharp and seems to have a correct white balance. I think it's just that the light was a bit unfortunate that day.--Peulle 08:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Forges_de_Varenne_-_Haut-fourneau.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Forges de Varenne - Haut-fourneau --JackyM59 09:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction. --DimiTalen 09:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Perspective correction made. --JackyM59 10:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks. But even so, the walls on the right are still not straight. --DimiTalen 11:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I see, the walls are tilted? In that case, I would go for a different crop here. --DimiTalen 12:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Could you please try again, this time with the original image? That is, before the blind application of geometric correction? -- Alvesgaspar 18:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have restored the original file. JackyM59 07:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I was wrong, sorry! -- Alvesgaspar 11:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Wolnica_Square,_aerial_view_from_the_north_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wolnica Square, aerial view from the north 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 08:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Very dull light, underexposed, a bit too soft. These series of yours aerial views are undoubtedly useful, but simply look not good enough to be QI, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:08, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Corpus_Christi_Church,_26_Bożego_Ciała_Street,_bird's_eye_view_2025,_Kazimierz,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Corpus Christi Church, 26 Bożego Ciała Street, bird's eye view 2025, Kazimierz, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 08:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Very dull light, underexposed, a bit too soft. These series of yours aerial views are undoubtedly useful, but simply look not good enough to be QI, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Wolnica_Square,_southern_frontage,_aerial_view_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wolnica Square, southern frontage, aerial view 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 08:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Very dull light, underexposed, a bit too soft. These series of yours aerial views are undoubtedly useful, but simply look not good enough to be QI, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

File:At_Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_2025_025_-_The_Hay_Field_by_Thomas_Armstrong.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Hay Field by Thomas Armstrong at the V&A, London --Mike Peel 13:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp, too soft. Too much noise reduction ? --Sebring12Hrs 16:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Disagree - text on frame indicates sharpness - although would have reduced or completely cropped the distracting light wall surrounding the frame, IMO image is good quality so have supported QI and proposed for discussion. --Scotch Mist 11:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough quality. Besides, I like the Pre-Raphaelites... -- Alvesgaspar 18:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. Frame is sharp but painting is too soft even with high resolution. I love Pre-Raphaelites too, but it doesn't matter. --Gower 07:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Gower 07:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:At_Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_2025_099_-_Battle_Scene_by_Jan_Martszen_de_Jonge.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Battle Scene by Jan Martszen de Jonge at the V&A, London --Mike Peel 13:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp, too soft. Too much noise reduction ? --Sebring12Hrs 19:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Disagree - this is a small painting but frame indicates sharpness - although would have trimmed the distracting maroon wall surrounding the frame and perhaps 'slightly lightened' the image, IMO it is good quality so have supported QI and proposed for discussion. --Scotch Mist 11:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:02, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Colombo_Lisbon_November_2025-8.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of Colombo commercial mall, Lisbon, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 13:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 13:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not centered, I'm not convinced by the composition and the perspective. I'd like to see others opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 13:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Not a great composition. But I don't see any specific violations of the QI-standards to oppose. --August (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 15:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Saint_Catherine_church_in_Asti_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Portal of the Saint Catherine church in Asti, Piedmont, Italy. --Tournasol7 03:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 03:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Purple CAs at top edges. --Sebring12Hrs 03:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oh sorry I didn't notice the support vote, but I have to decline now. --Sebring12Hrs 14:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --August (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Château_de_Brissac_-_Nord_Est.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Château de Brissac - Nord Est --JackyM59 11:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sky is burnt, the rest is kind of soft? --DimiTalen 08:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The sky could be darkened and the facade brightened. --Sebring12Hrs 14:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Scotch Mist 17:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Rjcastillo 20:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose burnt clouds, unfortunate lighting. --Smial 21:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition. But blown out highlights at sky and some parts of the roof. --Augustgeyler 00:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

File:An_der_Überfuhr_Leoben_06-2025_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bicycle path over the river Mur, an der Überfuhr Leoben --Aciarium 12:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Dust spot in the sky to clone out --Gower 12:50, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Aplucas0703 17:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Untill dust spots aren't fixed.--Milseburg 10:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots --August 09:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Denoised and removed dust spots. Hope it is okay now! --Aciarium 20:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Good now, only one very minor spot still exists in the centre. --Augustgeyler 21:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you! May I ask how you scan for dust spots? I am having a hard time finding them by the naked eye. --Aciarium 21:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --August (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakowska_street,_view_to_S,_Kazimierz,_Kraków,_Poland,_2025.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Na_Stawach_square,_northern_buildings,_Krakow,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Na Stawach square, northern buildings, Krakow, Poland --Igor123121 08:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rohit14400 11:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose High angle and intense PC led to unrealistic impression of the main buildings. They are distorted and look like falling backwards. --Augustgeyler 05:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 10:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness and WB is not good. --Екатерина Борисова 03:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: ✓ Done --Igor123121 20:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Alois_Edlinger-Gasse_Leoben_06-2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Alois Edlinger-Gasse, Leoben, from the west. --Aciarium 07:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots in the sky to remove and noise could be reduced. --Milseburg 19:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Doing… @Milseburg: Thank you for notifying me, I will address the issues in a few days. --Aciarium 21:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Denoised and removed dust spots. Hope it is okay now! --Aciarium 20:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Forschungszentrum_für_Wasserstoff_und_Kohlenstoff,_MUL,_06-2025_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Research Center for Hydrogen and Carbon of Montanuniversität Leoben, west facade. --Aciarium 07:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots in the sky to remove, noise could be reduced. Several of your other images have the same problem. Please keep an eye on this. --Milseburg 19:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Doing… @Milseburg: Thank you for notifying me about this issue. It appears that in Lightroom, performing PC after using the eraser tool changes the eraser‘s position, effectively not removing the dust spots. I will be able to address the problem in a few days. --Aciarium 21:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Denoised and removed dust spots. Hope it is okay now! --Aciarium 20:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, the quality is good now. --Harlock81 19:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 19:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 01 Jan → Fri 09 Jan
  • Fri 02 Jan → Sat 10 Jan
  • Sat 03 Jan → Sun 11 Jan
  • Sun 04 Jan → Mon 12 Jan
  • Mon 05 Jan → Tue 13 Jan
  • Tue 06 Jan → Wed 14 Jan
  • Wed 07 Jan → Thu 15 Jan
  • Thu 08 Jan → Fri 16 Jan
  • Fri 09 Jan → Sat 17 Jan