Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
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 edits, 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.

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 October 2025.
  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 October 2025.
  • 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 October 19 2025 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]] 12:54, 19 October 2025 (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
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).


October 19, 2025

[edit]

October 18, 2025

[edit]

October 17, 2025

[edit]

October 16, 2025

[edit]

October 15, 2025

[edit]

October 14, 2025

[edit]

October 13, 2025

[edit]

October 12, 2025

[edit]

October 11, 2025

[edit]

October 10, 2025

[edit]

October 9, 2025

[edit]

October 8, 2025

[edit]

October 6, 2025

[edit]

October 5, 2025

[edit]

October 4, 2025

[edit]

October 3, 2025

[edit]

September 26, 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:Bay_of_Kotor_-_Sveti_Dorde.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sveti Đorđe island in Bay of Kotor / Montenegro --Imehling 10:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The monastery is blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 12:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
    I would like to have a discussion about that. --Imehling 15:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Lvova 08:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Punakha_Dzong_behind_vegetation.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Punakha Dzong --CreativeC 19:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support A horse is cut, but it's absolutely not the first thing we see there, so QI. --Lvova 11:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Cut off head of the horse spoils the image though this horse is not the main subject. Let's hear other opinions. --Екатерина Борисова 22:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Lvova 08:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Entrance_archway_to_the_Ranakpur_temple.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Entrance archway to the Ranakpur temple --CreativeC 19:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 11:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not so bad, but the edges are a bit blurred, especially at left and the crop is borderline. I would like to hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 12:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  SupportI wish the symmetry was dealt better but otherwise OK to me. --UnpetitproleX 02:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Lvova 08:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Tirthankara_in_Kayotsarga_(standing)_position_with_two_apsaras_at_Ahmedabad,_Gujarat.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tirthankara in Kayotsarga (standing) position with two apsaras having Kalasha outside at Chaumukhji Pol in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India --Brihaspati 12:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too small resolution under obligatory 2 Mp. --Gower 13:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not ready to support this image, but its new version has more than 6mpx, so the reason why Gower declined it is wrong now. --Екатерина Борисова 22:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Lvova 08:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Kazan_Ioanno-Predtechensky_Monastery_Bell_Tower_2024-07-14_1714.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kazan Ioanno-Predtechensky Monastery Bell Tower --Mike1979 Russia 05:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unfortunate bottom crop and point of view. I understand that it's very hard to avoid wires taking photos in a big city, but nethertheless wires here are very disturbing, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 00:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
    I disagree. The main subject is visible in its entirety. There's still plenty of space below. The fence isn't the subject of the photo, and parts of it don't obscure the main subject. Long wires hang between the buildings above the fence, and it's impossible to avoid them. The bottom edge of the photo was chosen to avoid parked cars, which would further clutter the image. Discuss, please. --Mike1979 Russia 08:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Lvova 08:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Hillesheim,_Stadtbefestigung_Dm_en_de_katholische_Pfarrkirche_Sankt_Martin_Dm_IMG_5151_2024-08-31_12.00.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hillesheim in Germany-RP, town fortifications and the catholic church Pfarrkirche Sankt Martin --Michielverbeek 05:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • The image is QI, but the family should be cloned out IMO. --Syntaxys 05:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
    Famils isnt't very distracting, and no personality rights violated due to resolution of faces. --Gower 07:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
    A discussion has already been started so I put to discuss --Michielverbeek 19:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  • QI. I like the contrast between the family and the castle. It is not a postcard, it is an illustrative image. Lvova 08:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Lvova 08:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:ClapperRailStGeorgeIsland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Clapper rail seen on St. George Island State Park --Polinova 14:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it is noisy, the focus is on the bird's chest, not its head. --Lvova 10:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Reprocessed the raw file and reuploaded. What do you think now @Lvova --Polinova 14:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
    I am not sure, but it has chances, so let's CR. --Lvova 10:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Lvova 08:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Москва,_ул._М._Никитская,_6_стр._5_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Balcony of Ryabushinsky House, Moscow, Russia. By User:ElenaLitera --Екатерина Борисова 22:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • PC needed --Gower 14:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
    Absolutely not. The horizons here are horizontal, the verticals are vertical, and everything else has an irregular shape in real life (see in the category). --Екатерина Борисова 03:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Template:Undone Verticals aren't vertical, it's undeniable here, sorry. --Gower 15:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
    "undeniable" is a very strong expression for the balcony above the Art Nouveau-style porch, which has a complex shape and therefore does not look vertical. I still advise to look at the other images in the category before making any decisions. --Екатерина Борисова 23:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Lvova 08:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Treibräder_&_Kuppelstangen_der_DB_01_1063_(Braunschweig,_2019).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Driving wheels and coupling rods of the DB 01 1063 --JoachimKohler-HB 12:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose impressive but lacks sharpness, blacks crushed partially --Gower 13:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Other opinions? --JoachimKohler-HB 18:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall sharpness not adequate. --Plozessor 08:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lvova 10:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Common_Kingfisher_2025_08_30_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A female common kingfisher (Alcedo atthis). --Alexis Lours 08:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ercé 08:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oppose. A little overexposed and while the beak is sharp, much of the body is not. --GRDN711 14:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Definitely good quality. Lvova 10:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Lvova 10:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Egyptian_goose_2025_09_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A juvenile egyptian goose (Alopochen aegyptiaca). --Alexis Lours 08:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. Great! --Gower 08:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A good scene and well composed. The problem is most of the scene is out-of-focus and even the sharpest gosling is not crispy. Shutter speed is fine but suggest you boost the ISO and try f/8 of f/11 for greater dof. --GRDN711 14:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
 Support Still think my initial comments have merit for consideration but have been convinced by comments of other reviewers and now support. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. It is okay that things that are not the subject are out of focus. The subject is sharp and in focus.--Polinova 15:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Honestly curious how this can be considered not sharp enough on the main subject. Increasing the DOF would reduce the separation with other subject. I'm also fairly certain this highly passes the bar of QI in terms of sharpness. --Alexis Lours 21:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Polinova. Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 01:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This is QIC, not FPC, so we should not nitpick. Good quality --Jakubhal 04:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. --Plozessor 08:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 10:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Lvova 10:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Lvova 10:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025,_Kraków,_Muzeum_Książat_Czartoryjskich,_Ulica_Pijarska_(7).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, Kraków, Muzeum Książat Czartoryjskich, Ulica Pijarska --Igor123121 19:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good quality --Michielverbeek 19:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downscaled. --Sebring12Hrs 11:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I think you downscale your images to hide overprocessing artifacts, but it is not the good method to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done
  •  Support new version is improved. Good quality. --E bailey 04:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It lacks detailsat right. --Sebring12Hrs 12:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 12:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025,_Kraków,_Kościół_Świętej_Trójcy,_Ulica_Krakowska_48_(83).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, Kraków, Kościół Świętej Trójcy, Ulica Krakowska 48 --Igor123121 16:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 18:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downscaled --Lmbuga 19:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • See versions --Lmbuga 19:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga --Jakubhal 04:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose below expectations, lacking detail, noise in dark areas. --Gower 20:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Lmbuga: @Jakubal: @Peulle: ✓ Done Igor123121 17:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me now --Jakubhal 04:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Sebring12Hrs 12:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 12:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025,_ul._Gołębia_24,_Kraków,_Collegium_Maius_Uniwersytetu_Jagiellońskiego,_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, ul. Gołębia 24, Kraków, Collegium Maius Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego --Igor123121 16:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 18:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downscaled --Jakubhal 19:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Jakubhal: no rule forbids reducing the resolution of images. All it says is "it should not be done" or that "the non-downsampled version is preferred" - but that is not the same as a prohibition. --Igor123121 20:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. It may not seem like a prohibition, but what it certainly is not is permission to always do so. --Lmbuga 20:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unless there is good reason, photos should be uploaded with as high a resolution as possible.--Peulle 07:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ugly compression artifacts on the sky. --Gower 20:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Lmbuga: @Jakubal: @Peulle: ✓ Done Igor123121 17:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok Jakubhal 04:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This is not a prohibition to downscale images, but we don't like it... But now it is better. --Sebring12Hrs 10:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 10:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Kraków,_Floriańska_11_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kraków, Floriańska 11 --Igor123121 04:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 04:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downscaled --Lmbuga 21:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. It's like you are using a 2000s camera. --Sebring12Hrs 11:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. Nasty artifacts, especially in dark parts. --Gower 20:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Lmbuga: @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done Igor123121 16:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 20:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025,_Kraków,_Ratusz_na_Kazimierzu,_Plac_Wolnica_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, Kraków, Ratusz na Kazimierzu, Plac Wolnica --Igor123121 04:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downscaled --Lmbuga 21:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. It's like you are using a 2000s camera. --Sebring12Hrs 11:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Ok but I didn't notice that there are a lot of blurred areas, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 10:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. + too much bottom and spire is cut--Gower 19:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Lmbuga: @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done Igor123121 17:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Back light so facade is dark. Tip of tower is cut off. Sorry. --Imehling 10:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 10:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025,_Kraków,_Rynek_Główny_9_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, Kraków, Rynek Główny 9 --Igor123121 04:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 04:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downscaled --Lmbuga 21:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. It's like you are using a 2000s camera. --Sebring12Hrs 11:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose low texture quality: color noise and maybe compression? --Gower 19:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Lmbuga: @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done Igor123121 17:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Doesn't look so bad in my view. --Imehling 10:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Now ok, thanks. --Sebring12Hrs 10:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 10:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025,_Kraków,_Barbakan,_Planty_(12).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, Kraków, Barbakan, Planty --Igor123121 04:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downscaled --Lmbuga 21:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. It's like you are using a 2000s camera. --Sebring12Hrs 11:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. Low quality: noise and artifacts on bricks, chromatic aberration, compression? --Gower 19:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Lmbuga: @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done Igor123121 17:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Light could be better but overall quality is ok in my view. --Imehling 10:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Now ok. --Sebring12Hrs 10:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 10:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025,_Kraków,_cmentarz_wojskowy_przy_ul._Prandoty_(część_Cmentarza_Rakowickiego)_(870).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, Kraków, cmentarz wojskowy przy ul. Prandoty (część Cmentarza Rakowickiego) --Igor123121 04:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Llez 05:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downscaled --Lmbuga 21:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It does appear so, yes.--Peulle 07:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 11:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilt not corrected. --Gower 19:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Lmbuga: @Peulle: @Sebring12Hrs: @Gower: ✓ Done Igor123121 16:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spot in the sky, and the sky is a little bit posterized around the dust spot. Otherwise good. --Sebring12Hrs 16:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done Igor123121 17:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 16:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Orange_Arc_d'Orange_N_20250627.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Triumphal Arch of Orange (north view) --Uoaei1 04:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 04:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction: top is larger than bottom --Romainbehar 06:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Minor correction done. The verticals of this old building are not all straight! --Uoaei1 12:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now! Romainbehar 06:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Is it possible to retrieve the burnt highlights ? --Benjism89 16:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Yes, as the highlights are not blown, but it makes no improvement on these small and smooth surfaces. --Uoaei1 17:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 09:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:20230520_Crataegus_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Western Honey Bee on a flower of a Hawthorn tree in the nature reserve Südliche Fröttmaninger Heide --FlocciNivis 16:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 17:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main theme: honey bee isn't fully in focus, neither all the flowers. --Gower 07:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A little bit soft, but good enough. Lvova 10:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 10:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Löcherbiene_(Heriades_truncorum)-20250811-RM-180059.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Honey bee (Heriades truncorum) on an anemone flower --Ermell 05:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 06:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only bee's head is in focus, blacks clipped. --Gower 07:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Head is not only, but enough. Lvova 10:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Lvova. --Plozessor 03:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Lvova Юрий Д.К. 10:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Arco_Conmemorativo,_Plaza_Alonso_de_Ojeda_MG_491720250913.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Memorial Arch, Alonso de Ojeda Square. --Rjcastillo 02:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose CA sorry --Cvmontuy 04:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC))
  • ✓ Done new version. --Rjcastillo 22:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Lvova 10:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Pensjonat_„Chata_Cyborga”_w_Bielicach_(03).jpg

[edit]

  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 12:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blue tint on trees not solved. --Gower 04:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. "Blue tint" is smoke --Uoaei1 05:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now, blue tinit is really low. --Sebring12Hrs 17:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 17:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Pensjonat_„Chata_Cyborga”_w_Bielicach_(04).jpg

[edit]

  •  Oppose Decline per Jacek Halicki personal wish. He wrote to me that he doesn't sees chromatic aberration and wants discussion. --Gower 07:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Jacek Halicki 07:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me, no CA visible --Uoaei1 05:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I added a note for the red tint. --Sebring12Hrs 17:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
@Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 06:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. Blue tint is almost no visible, even at full size. --Sebring12Hrs 10:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 10:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Pensjonat_„Chata_Cyborga”_w_Bielicach_(02).jpg

[edit]

  •  Oppose Decline per Jacek Halicki personal wish. He wrote to me that he doesn't sees chromatic aberration and wants discussion. --Gower 07:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Jacek Halicki 07:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me, no CA visible --Uoaei1 05:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Uoaei1. Lvova 10:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 12:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Albrechtshalle_w_Lądku-Zdroju_(1).jpg

[edit]

  •  Oppose Decline per Jacek Halicki personal wish. He wrote to me that he doesn't sees chromatic aberration and wants discussion. --Gower 07:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Jacek Halicki 07:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me, no CA visible --Uoaei1 05:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me too. --Sebring12Hrs 17:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 17:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Kościół_św._Trójcy_w_Jeleniowie_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Holy Trinity church in Jeleniów 1 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 11:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Blue tinted branches to correction --Gower 13:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Decline per Jacek Halicki personal wish. He wrote to me that he doesn't see chromatic aberration and wants to discuss. --Gower 08:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me, no CA or blue tinted branches visible at full size --Uoaei1 05:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Uoaei1. Lvova 10:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 12:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Kłodzko,_ul._Okrzei_3_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 3 Okrzei Street in Kłodzko 1 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 16:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Tree spoils the view --Cvmontuy 18:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support Trees are part of the composition. --Sebring12Hrs 19:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support per Sebring12Hrs --Uoaei1 05:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 12:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Kłodzko,_ul._Okrzei_3_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 3 Okrzei Street in Kłodzko 2 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 16:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose View is obstructed. Bad composition --Brihaspati 17:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support Trees are part of the composition. --Sebring12Hrs 19:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose per Brihaspati --Cvmontuy 13:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
 Support per Sebring12Hrs, no view of this building is possible from this side without trees --Uoaei1 05:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
 Support per Sebring12Hrs. Lvova 18:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Lvova 18:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Kłodzko,_ul._Okrzei_3_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 3 Okrzei Street in Kłodzko 4 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 16:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition is messy. --Brihaspati 17:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Technically very good quality. Composition problem are minor IMO. Let's discuss. --George Chernilevsky 17:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 19:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This place is messy, so I have no issue with the composition --Uoaei1 05:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Gower 19:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Gower 19:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:CaliforniaQuail.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination California quail in Susanville, California --Polinova 15:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Nice bird but it lacks sharpness, sorry --Poco a poco 16:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. It has enough sharpness and good quality. --Brihaspati 17:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • We have often noms that are somehow borderline, but I have to say that this one is none of them, Brihaspati. We definitely expect more sharpness that what we see here. Poco a poco 17:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco a poco --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a poco --Jakubhal 19:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a poco --Gower 19:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 19:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Maracaibo_MG_492020250913.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Signs in Maracaibo. --Rjcastillo 02:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose It is tilted. Could you correct it?? --Cvmontuy 04:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
 Support Look at the horizon. I think it is not tilted, just on a hill. Potentially a little tilted to make the subject appear more straight. --Polinova (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
 Comment The horizon is tilted, and the base of the letters also needs perspective correction.--Cvmontuy 17:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 12:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025,_Kraków,_Kamienica_Lisia_Jama.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, Kraków, Kamienica Lisia Jama --Igor123121 16:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Unfixed barrel distortion (look at gutters). --Gower 18:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
    So go to CR.... --Sebring12Hrs 20:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Implicit opposing vote added. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

File:BE_SER_Tribute_to_Vanfleteren.png

[edit]

  • Nomination Picture made in the beglium Quarter of Ougreé, Liège --Grunpfnul 14:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 15:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Its a Picture on tri-x - it has to be Noisy… --Grunpfnul 16:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't know what is "tri-x" but this explanation doesn't convince me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • It’s a film made by Kodak --Grunpfnul 21:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Aaaaahhhh ! Sorry ! Not easy to judge. But I think you are right. I agree that noise should remain on a chemical processe. Removing the grain, as is sometimes done on certain old Blu-ray films, removes the authenticity of the technique. So I cancel my vote, but I don't know if I could support. --Sebring12Hrs 18:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but from what you say, it could be FP, but QI, hardly: the noise is alarming, the details are poor (I can mark the lack of detail with a note, how could I not, if I can't even imagine the material of the bricks), the intention is exclusively artistic (it doesn't fit in here at all). --Lmbuga 22:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Guys, this isn't noise, it's film grain. The Kodak Tri-X is (was?) a high-sensitivity B&W film with big metallic silver halide particles that produce this gritty texture. I don't know if this image deserves the QI stamp (e.g., the focus doesn't seem to be on the wall), but I don't think it should be rejected on the basis of having film grain. --Julesvernex2 10:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Julesvernex2: I acknowledge the noise due to my lack of knowledge. I note that the ‘noise’ does not affect the sharpness. I reject the image because of its intention and for what it is. It may be that I am very confused.--Lmbuga 11:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I share that confusion. It's not easy to apply the QI guidelines to film images, which do not benefit from noise reduction, sharpening, lens corrections, perspective correction, and a myriad of other comforts of digital photography. Whatever the outcome though, thank you to the nominator for this very interesting image. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry, at this moment, I do not feel qualified to comment on this photograph. I believe it would be unfair for me to give my opinion. I no longer have an opinion, but if I did, it would not be negative. --Lmbuga 15:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
  • But my opinion would never be positive. I still believe it's not IQ.--Lmbuga 23:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This is excellent photo even if the formal requirements of the digital age preclude it from being considered "quality." Although, in my opinion, "quality" of a photo implies the ability to make a high-quality large-format print from it. The size and quality of this scan, I believe, would allow for a print up to 30x40 cm without any visible defects. Film grain, by the way, can be an additional artistic touch, enhancing the impression of the print, and the grain of this Tri-X film looks nice. I vote for this "warm analog" photo as "quality," and I would gladly vote for it in the "Image of the Day" nominations. Vsatinet (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not assessable. This is not the place that the picture deserves. --Lmbuga 23:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is very interesting picture, but not a QI Jakubhal 04:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This is an excellent reproduction of a sharp and well exposed photograph on a medium that can now be considered historical. --Smial 10:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment poor categorization --Gower 11:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Indeed, added a few --Julesvernex2 15:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Le_Quesnoy,_vue_de_la_rue_du_Maréchal_Joffre_IA59005682.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination rue du Maréchal Joffre, Le Quesnoy --Pierre André Leclercq 14:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 15:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Lack of detail. Sorry, It's not QI imo. See the area with the bricks on the right-hand side of the photo, where the street signs are located. --Lmbuga 22:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga. --Gower 19:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 19:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Gliwice_Las_Dabrowa_forest.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gliwice, Las Dąbrowa nature reserve. --Gower 07:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Nice view, but nothing is in focus here. --Екатерина Борисова 22:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 17:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 17:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Katowice_Mickiewicza_5_north.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Katowice, 5 Mickiewicza Street, former baths --Gower 07:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Noise should be reduced --Ermell 08:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
 Comment, thanks @Ermell: for your review, I've uploaded new version from RAW with less noise, could you check it, please? --Gower 15:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit soft now but o.k.--Ermell 13:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 12:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Orange_Fungus_Eucalyptus_Ooty_Oct25_A7CR_07947.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Orange fungus on the north side of a eucalyptus tree, Forest Gate, Ooty, India --Tagooty 03:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 04:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Lack of sufficient ID. By the way, this might well be a lichen. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Thanks for the hint. Changed the description and CAT to orange lichen. --Tagooty 09:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
 Neutral I am still not happy about the lack of identification, but identification of lichens might be a difficult job that can be done only by a few experts and it might require chemical reagents and microscopy. So I cancel my opposing vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp to me. Very strange textures. --Sebring12Hrs 22:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. Lack sharpness. --Gower 19:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 19:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:DSC00752_San_Salvator_Laur.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination San Salvatore in Lauro --Rione Colonna 09:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Please make the image little bit sharp. Increase the highlight. --Brihaspati 10:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    Done. Thank you--Rione Colonna 11:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Color noise in the sky. --Sebring12Hrs 12:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    done.thank you --Rione Colonna 07:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Color noise is still there to me. --Sebring12Hrs 22:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't see it. --Rione Colonna 22:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry no color noise (maybe simple noise or lack of sharpness), but very overprocessed now, the textures are washed, not details appear now. --Sebring12Hrs 11:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose main entrance is totally blurry, stone textures are horrible partially. --Gower 19:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sebring12Hrs, Gower Check it out now, completely reworked. Thank you --Rione Colonna 18:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support Yes it's very good now ! Thanks. --Sebring12Hrs 11:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 11:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Moscow._Church_of_the_Theotokos_of_the_Sign_P4162263_2750.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow. Church of the Theotokos of the Sign --Alexxx1979 07:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 08:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Some verticals are done, some are not, the result is unnaturally disctorted, the building is falling down. --Lvova 09:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support The church is not vertikal. Compare with the new building in background. --Mike1979 Russia 08:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lvova: The building seems to be falling backwards.--Lmbuga 00:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support PC is good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 09:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 11:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025._Kraków,_Teatr_im._Juliusza_Słowackiego,_Plac_Świętego_Ducha_(26).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025. Kraków, Teatr im. Juliusza Słowackiego, Plac Świętego Ducha --Igor123121 13:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Nice try, but not sharp, and the crop is too tight. --Екатерина Борисова 21:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support Not so bad to me. The crop is acceptable and sharpness good. --Sebring12Hrs 09:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downscaled --Lmbuga (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ohh yes, you are right, we can't accept this all the time. --Sebring12Hrs 17:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Lmbuga: @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done Igor123121 16:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 17:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025,_Kraków,_Park_Strzelecki_w_Krakowie,_17.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, Kraków, Park Strzelecki w Krakowie --Igor123121 13:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The previous version had 5,535 × 3,138 pixels--Lmbuga 14:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 15:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Downscaled. --Sebring12Hrs 15:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done --Igor123121 16:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
     Comment When promoting the pictures, I should have mentioned that a new and correct version had been uploaded for all the pictures. I verified this when I promoted them.--Lmbuga 18:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025,_Kraków,_Park_Strzelecki_w_Krakowie,_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, Kraków, Park Strzelecki w Krakowie --Igor123121 13:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The metadata says 3,376 x 6,000 px and the picture is 2,100 × 3,732 pixels. The previous version had 3,376 × 6,000. --Lmbuga 14:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 15:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose PC is needed. Could you improve the perspective without downscale the image ? --Sebring12Hrs 15:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done --Igor123121 16:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
 Comment When promoting the pictures, I should have mentioned that a new and correct version had been uploaded for all the pictures. I verified this when I promoted them. --Lmbuga (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfixed chromatic aberration (trees), monument is not in a parallel plane to the camera. --Gower 19:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 19:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025,_Kraków,_Park_Strzelecki_w_Krakowie,_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2025, Kraków, Park Strzelecki w Krakowie --Igor123121 13:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The previous version had 3,376 x 6000 pixels. --Lmbuga 14:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 15:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Dust spots. --Sebring12Hrs 15:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done --Igor123121 16:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
 Comment When promoting the pictures, I should have mentioned that a new and correct version had been uploaded for all the pictures. I verified this when I promoted them. --Lmbuga (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Volkswagen_Golf_IV_Cabriolet_IMG_3972_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Volkswagen Golf IV Cabriolet in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 08:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Image quality isn't impressive, lack of detail in dark spots (clipped) --Gower 17:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Not impressive, but Ok IMHO --Velvet 09:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Implicit supporting vote clarified. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me -- George Chernilevsky 05:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks a little noisy in places and not very sharp in places you can tell like tires.
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   -- George Chernilevsky 05:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Demi_Vollering_-_2025_European_road_championship_podium_-_Guilherand-Granges.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Demi Vollering vainqueure de la course en ligne des championnats d'Europe 2025 à Guilherand-Granges.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :La réalisation de ce document a été parrainée par Wikimédia France. (Proposez un projet !). By User:Kakoula10 --Shougissime 18:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Nice, but not very sharp face. --Gower 19:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Hm... the focus is apparently on the tasty gold medal. Nonetheless, I still think that this is good enough for QI. --AFBorchert 20:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • But a bit noisy and for a portrait it's bad that the focus is not on eyes. It is NOT an oppose voice, but I would like to read more opinions. --Lvova 09:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy in subject's face to be QI in my opinion. --E bailey 15:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as E bailey --Gower 20:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Over the bar for me. --Plozessor 06:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor --Ermell 13:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The face is too blurry IMO, especially considering the rather small image size. Was this photo downscaled? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other. --Sebring12Hrs 22:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice photo, but the face is too blurry, digital processing artefacts are visible on the face and neck. Sorry. LexKurochkin 07:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 11:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Avestruz_(Struthio_camelus),_zona_de_conservación_de_Ngorongoro,_Tanzania,_2024-05-27,_DD_33.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common ostrich (Struthio camelus), Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania --Poco a poco 07:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Subject not in focus. --E bailey 14:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ostrich not very sharp. --Gower 17:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry guys, this reviews are not fine. It's a wild shot taken with a 600mm lens, I still applied more sharpness, QI to me if I know what this is about --Poco a poco 22:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
    But the fact about hardness of photoshooting is unrelated to sharpness, in my opinion you also often nominate pictures that are unsharp - I stopped to comment because of your reaction. This photo has problems with the colors of the neck now. Lvova 08:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    True, there was some color noise, I removed it Poco a poco 17:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
     Weak support now. Lvova 18:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    I’ll add this right away. These pages often mention that there are conditions in which QI cannot be achieved - for example, specific museum conditions or photos of buildings on very narrow streets. This is just a given, which doesn’t mean the photos are bad or useless; they simply don’t fit the QI criteria. But for some reason, you think that outside the rules, we should make an exception for wildlife shots taken with a telephoto lens; traditionally, this often works, especially since you can reference the fact that many of your images have been accepted under this approach.
    Additionally, you refer to the equipment of the people evaluating your work. Indeed, my camera has far more technical limitations than yours; there are situations where it’s pointless for me to shoot even for illustrative purposes, without aiming for QI. However, I’m getting better at understanding these conditions and limitations and achieving results without trying to say, "Come on, look at how tough the conditions were for a phone camera". Your equipment has fewer limitations, but there are still some. Don’t rely on authority instead of simply accepting its limitations. Lvova 09:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    I don't understand what you try to elaborate, sorry. There are always limitations, but nobody can expect the same sharpness (which isn't impossible but unlikely) of a manhole vs shy wild life for which you need a strong tele, specially when reviewers pixelpee 50 Mpx images. Poco a poco 17:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    I try to say that I don't like ideas like '48mp cannot be not ideal'. It still can be sharp enough or not. You're good at processing, not only in photoshooting, so after 2 fixes it is QI, but I dislike what you regularly say when see an oppose voice (like here). Lvova 18:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    This community has a high standard for bird photography. Especially when the bird is still, it should be sharp. Here are some recent examples of declined QI images of birds: heron, loon, ostrich, and flamingo --E bailey 22:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any problem with sharpness here. It the eye is out of focus, then it's by no more than a few centimeters ... --Benjism89 16:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Why are the neck and right part of the back so hazy, compared to the rest? --Plozessor 06:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sufficiently sharp for a bird at rest. --Tagooty 06:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 11:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Soccer_goal_at_the_beach_boulevard_of_Toroni.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Soccer goal at the beach boulevard of Toroni --Kritzolina 17:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Vsatinet 08:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness. Sorry. --Ermell 09:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell.--Peulle 08:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO ok. --Sebring12Hrs 10:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed. --Kallerna 07:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell. --LexKurochkin 07:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 11:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Chatham_Cenotaph,_Chatham,_Ontario,_2025-07-06_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chatham Cenotaph, Chatham, Ontario, 2025-07-06 --Crisco 1492 14:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Nice photo, but I see what looks like a speck of dust near the sculpture's right elbow. --Vsatinet 14:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, no doubt. --Harmonide 00:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Until an answer to the question about that dot. --Lvova 09:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support now. Lvova 10:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
    It may also be an object in flight. --Harlock81 10:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good definition. Good representation of the monument. --Harlock81 10:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Harlock81, yes, it could be, for example, a small fly crossing the frame out of DoF. But IMHO it looks like garbage and ruins the shot just as a dust spot. And it's easy to remove it. Vsatinet 07:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Removed. --Harlock81 12:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support now. Vsatinet 21:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Harlock81. --Gower 19:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sat 11 Oct → Sun 19 Oct
  • Sun 12 Oct → Mon 20 Oct
  • Mon 13 Oct → Tue 21 Oct
  • Tue 14 Oct → Wed 22 Oct
  • Wed 15 Oct → Thu 23 Oct
  • Thu 16 Oct → Fri 24 Oct
  • Fri 17 Oct → Sat 25 Oct
  • Sat 18 Oct → Sun 26 Oct
  • Sun 19 Oct → Mon 27 Oct