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 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.

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 December 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 December 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 December 03 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]] 14:31, 3 December 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

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).


December 3, 2025

[edit]

December 2, 2025

[edit]

December 1, 2025

[edit]

November 30, 2025

[edit]

November 29, 2025

[edit]

November 28, 2025

[edit]

November 27, 2025

[edit]

November 26, 2025

[edit]

November 25, 2025

[edit]

November 24, 2025

[edit]

November 23, 2025

[edit]

November 21, 2025

[edit]

November 19, 2025

[edit]

November 18, 2025

[edit]

November 16, 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:Magenta_garden_geranium_(Pelargonium_×_hortorum)_against_a_blue_sky,_Lisbon,_Portugal_(approx._GPS_location)_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Magenta garden geranium (Pelargonium × hortorum) against a blue sky, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 18:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lack of sharpness --A S M Jobaer 19:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 21:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Sebring12Hrs' disagreeing. Picture is sharp and very good. --Plozessor 05:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Sebring12Hrs and Plozessor. --Wobbanight 13:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Polanica-Zdrój,_ul._Wojska_Polskiego_62.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 62 Wojska Polskiego Street in Polanica-Zdrój --Jacek Halicki 00:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, technically very good, but too much stuff in front of the house. --Plozessor 03:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, please discuss, this is a historic house worth spotting and I had no opportunity to take a better shot. --Jacek Halicki 08:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Surely the picture is valuable and the house was "worth spotting", no one doubts that. But sometimes you can't take a QI due to the circumstances, still you should take the best picture you can get. Pfarrscheune Ebern is a similar example of mine - I took this picture of the historic building because we didn't have one in Commons, still I don't consider it QI (and thus didn't nominate it) because of the disturbing cars. --Plozessor 05:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Chorzów_Powstańców_18_2019.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Walbrzych_Ksiaz_castle_Game_Saloon_2019.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of Książ Castle, game room. --Gower 17:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 17:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp and noisy, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 01:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина, especially chroma noise. Probably it could be improved to an acceptable state with better raw conversion, AI denoise etc. --Plozessor 05:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

File:ILA_2018,_Schönefeld_(1X7A5884).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Airbus A340 European Flight Lab signing ceremony during ILA Berlin Air Show 2018 --MB-one 11:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Wobbanight 17:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The focus is on the plane and on the signing arm, whereas the face and the rest of the person are out of focus. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support DoF could be higher but still over the bar for me. --Plozessor 05:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert. --Augustgeyler 10:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Jesuit_church_in_Mannheim_(8).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of the Jesuit church in Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. --Tournasol7 02:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • May be a bit noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 02:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Noisy but still detailed. --Gower 17:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would like to hear other opinions ;) --Sebring12Hrs 17:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Slight noise in some areas but not very prominent. Over the bar for me. --Plozessor 05:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 10:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

File:777_Main_Street_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 360 ft (110 m) tall residential high-rise in Hartford, CT. --Wobbanight 21:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, feel free to go to "discuss". --Sebring12Hrs 23:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question How can I increase sharpness in my images? --Wobbanight 00:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I think this is not possible, but the sharpness is sometimes acceptable with smartphones, when the lighting conditions are good and the distance to the subject are not too far. --Sebring12Hrs 01:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • In addtion, you use a Samsung Galaxy A12, which is an entry-level smartphone. Not very old of course (2020), but not high-level. I would like to hear more opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 01:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I am getting a new phone next year, so hopefully the sharpness will be better than the one I have currently, so the Pittsburgh photos are acceptable for QI status. --Wobbanight 01:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Wobbanight: In general, it's very hard to take QI with smartphones. It can work in perfect weather conditions, but even the best smartphone pictures are borderline and just barely met QI requirements. No smartphone takes pictures of comparable quality as a proper camera with a "1-inch" or bigger sensor. --Plozessor 03:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low. --August (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Soldiers'_and_Sailors'_Monument_New_Haven_September_2025_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument in New Haven, CT. It was built in 1887 to commemorate the lives of soldiers who lost their lives in four American wars. --Wobbanight 16:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pangalau 17:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, it seems the building is falling back. --Sebring12Hrs 19:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:At_Brighton_2025_072_-_Volkswagen_T1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Volkswagen T1, 64 VAN, in Brighton --Mike Peel 08:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The person's face is visible, but the angle isn't very flattering. Good photo, but not high quality. --Túllio F 00:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:St_Joseph_church_in_Herzberg_(7).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Saint Joseph church in Herzberg am Harz, Lower Saxony, Germany. --Tournasol7 01:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The clock on the tower should be round, but here it looks as if the tower was photographed from below. I suppose, that it was really photographed from below and then straightened. As a result, the natural look of the dial suffered. --Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The clock is not exactly round but this picture is almost perfect, sharpness, perspective, light... --Sebring12Hrs 12:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Sometimes a deviation of "a few pixels" makes you decline a photo, but sometimes you're loyal to such kind of issues, which is weird. I'd like to hear other opinions. --Екатерина Борисова 03:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina. The image has seen intense PC. But from this low angle it should have been without, showing the low angle perspective naturally. --August (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Junkernstrasse_9_in_Herzberg_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Building at Junkernstraße 9 in Herzberg am Harz, Lower Saxony, Germany. --Tournasol7 01:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Upper winfows are strangely leaning to the left. --Екатерина Борисова 03:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective is ok to me, feel free to go to CR. --Sebring12Hrs 12:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd like to hear other opinions. --Екатерина Борисова 03:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question The old half-timbered house could well be crooked in reality, which makes the assessment tricky. However, the pavement in the foreground suggests that the photo was not taken perfectly frontally, but at a slight angle. Is it possible that a horizontal perspective correction was later applied to create the impression of a frontal view, using the beam between the ground and first floor as a reference? If that beam wasn’t straight to begin with, that could explain the distortion in the upper windows. --August (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This is a very narrow street. Judging from the picture in Google StreetView, it seems that nothing at this house is really straight. I don't see any issues with the picture, it's very good. --Plozessor 05:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Freshly_eclosed_individual_of_Mahathala_ameria_ameria_-_Khasi_Falcate_Oakblue.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Freshly eclosed individual of Mahathala ameria ameria - Khasi Falcate Oakblue. By User:Sarpitabose --Atudu 02:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 17:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise. --Sebring12Hrs 13:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support There is a little bit of noise, but this image is good enough IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)~
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Луга._Урицкого_54_08.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Бывшее_банковское_здание_(деталь),_Выборг,_Ленинградская_область_2_H1A5531WI.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Upper part of former Bank on Market Square (bottom-up view), Vyborg, Russia. By User:Kora27 --Екатерина Борисова 23:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Question Why is that sky so dark? Was there a polarisation-filter used? But even than it's very dark. --Augustgeyler 23:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose So I will have to oppose. Feel free to ask for more opinions. But without knowing about the filter, the sky looks artificial. --Augustgeyler 19:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't want to argue, but it will be useful to hear other opinions, whether this photo deserves the QI status. --Екатерина Борисова 03:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Aside from the questionable composition and perspective, this picture apparently does not have natural colors, which are a requirement for QI. --Plozessor 05:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 05:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Бухара,_Ситораи_Мохи-Хосса,_двухэтажный_павильон_(8).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Exterior details of Harem of Sitori-i-Mokhi Khosa palace, Bukhara, Uzbekistan. By User:ElenaLitera --Екатерина Борисова 23:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry.... --Sebring12Hrs 13:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sharpness is borderline, but just too low. --Augustgeyler 08:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose per Augustgeyler --Gower 17:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 17:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:20221017_Wasserturm_Neu-Ulm_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View up at the water tower in Neu-Ulm --FlocciNivis 13:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment How about crop to make tower perfectly in the middle of the frame? --Gower 14:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Too me QI after adding coordinates. --Milseburg 15:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The category is specific for the monument, whose coordinates are given also on Wikidata.Good quality of the photogrtaphy. --Harlock81 14:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is tilted cw. --Augustgeyler 22:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:UNESCO_World_Heritage_Monument_at_Sundarban_National_Park,_West_Bengal,_India_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination UNESCO World Heritage Monument at Sundarban National Park, West Bengal, India --Herpking 10:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 16:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is tilted cw, shows perspective distortion and is cropped to tightly at the bottom. --Augustgeyler 22:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler --Gower 17:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 17:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Palais_des_Ducs_et_des_États_de_Bourgogne_-_16.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dijon (Côte-d'Or, France) - Palace of the Dukes and Estates of Burgundy - Bar courtyard --Benjism89 08:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 11:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness and especially the left building looks distorted. --Augustgeyler 11:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Луга._Здание_общественных_бань_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Former public baths (now commerce building) in Luga, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Useful image (ok for VIC) but borderline sharpness, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 11:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Sebring here. I do like the composition, but it dosen't make up for the lack of sharpness. Sorry. --Wobbanight 18:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low partially --Gower 17:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 17:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Луга._Кирова_34_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Listed building in Luga, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Useful image (ok for VIC) but borderline sharpness, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 11:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose right side lacks sharpness, sorry --Gower 17:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 17:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Entrance_to_derelict_building,_Estádio_Universitário_de_Lisboa,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Entrance to derelict building, Estádio Universitário de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 11:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too high contrast --Gower 17:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The high contrast serves a purpose: to draw the eye to the door and overgrown vegetation in front of it. Whether one likes deeper shadows or lighter ones is a matter of taste, not technical quality --Julesvernex2 18:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Very harsh light, but technically OK. --Augustgeyler 16:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the harsh contrast and agree with the photographer's explanation. The picture is a good combination of artistic and documentary standards. --Plozessor 05:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 05:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Historisches_Hauptgebäude_der_Montanuniversität_Leoben,_Juli_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Main building of Montanuniversität Leoben, Leoben, Austria. --Aciarium 09:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 10:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very distorted due to heavy PC, looks like left side falls to the left, and right side falls to the right --Екатерина Борисова 03:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Katerina. --August (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any issue with PC. We ask for PC, and then it's decline because of heavy PC... I don't understand. Walls are straights and the buildings doesn't seems leaning at all or falling. --Sebring12Hrs 12:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • We ask for PC, but why make PC so heavily that the building loses its natural appearance and looks like a broken toy? Everything is fine in moderation. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --August (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Hydrangeas_from_Gniewoszów.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination multicolored hydrangeas at the church of St. Michael the Archangel in GniewoszówEnglish: multicolored hydrangeas at the church of St. Michael the Archangel in Gniewoszów --Gower 17:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 17:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp and noisy IMO. --Екатерина Борисова 02:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Tibetan_Sand-Plover_in_Bakkhali_September_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tibetan Sand-Plover (Anarhynchus atrifrons) in Bakkhali, West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 07:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 08:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough for this size. Needs to be cropped. Centererd subject. --Lmbuga 11:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Wojbórz_123_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 123 Wojbórz 1 --Jacek Halicki 01:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose But what about the top crop ? I would like to hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 18:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs Jakubhal 14:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support No problem with the top crop. Would be nice to have, but the motif itself is not cropped. --Smial 19:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Top crop and wires at the bottom left (which could have been avoided by moving the drone a little to the right) makes this a no-QI composition IMO, sorry --Benjism89 11:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others--Lmbuga 15:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial. --Augustgeyler 23:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Benjism89 -- Екатерина Борисова 03:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 07:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Tokio_Wohnhaus_Daimler-20091019-RM-102720.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Residential building in Tokyo with a parked Daimler Sovereign --Ermell 06:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Good, but too tight crop at the bottom. Tires are cut. --Gower 10:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Due to cut at bottom. --Augustgeyler 07:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Lets see some more opinions. I did not see your edit on time. The left crop is still very tight. The bottom one is good now. --Augustgeyler 22:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral OK, but still tight crop. --August (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Impresive attempt, but this added area is very blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 18:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Юрий Д.К. 21:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Did you use Adobe AI to add the area below the tires? --Plozessor 04:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
    •  Info Yes. --Ermell 07:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  • It creates max. 1024 x 1024 pixels, that's why it's so blurry. You can first use regular (non-AI) context-base filling ("Inhaltsbasiert"), then use the AI tool in max. 1024 pixels wide chunks.
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the AI-created parts look very unnatural. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, and perspective issues.--Peulle 07:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry, Clear QI IMO. And I like it --Lmbuga 10:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any significant issues and I like the motif and composition a lot. --MB-one 14:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Robert. The parking space is cleanly paved with concrete; on the right, you can see a narrow strip of paving in the original, and then the AI dumps a pile of gravel on the road? Sorry, but for me, one of the most important QI criteria, regardless of whether it has been written down somewhere or not, is that the photo depicts a given situation as accurately as possible in a documentary manner. That doesn't mean that a little bit of grass or sky can't be added if, for example, something is missing after perspective correction and the familiar white triangles appear. --Smial 14:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 14:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 25 Nov → Wed 03 Dec
  • Wed 26 Nov → Thu 04 Dec
  • Thu 27 Nov → Fri 05 Dec
  • Fri 28 Nov → Sat 06 Dec
  • Sat 29 Nov → Sun 07 Dec
  • Sun 30 Nov → Mon 08 Dec
  • Mon 01 Dec → Tue 09 Dec
  • Tue 02 Dec → Wed 10 Dec
  • Wed 03 Dec → Thu 11 Dec