Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

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

Purpose

[edit]

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

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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

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

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

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

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

Evaluating images

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

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Good voting practices

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

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

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

If declined,

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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

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

Consensual review process

[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 20:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

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

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

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

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

March 9, 2026

[edit]

March 8, 2026

[edit]

March 7, 2026

[edit]

March 6, 2026

[edit]

March 5, 2026

[edit]

March 4, 2026

[edit]

March 3, 2026

[edit]

March 2, 2026

[edit]

March 1, 2026

[edit]

February 28, 2026

[edit]

February 27, 2026

[edit]

February 26, 2026

[edit]

February 25, 2026

[edit]

February 24, 2026

[edit]

February 22, 2026

[edit]

February 21, 2026

[edit]

February 19, 2026

[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:Palazzo_Camerlenghi_a_Rialto_notte_Venezia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palazzo Camerlenghi a Rialto notte Venezia (by Moroder) --Sebring12Hrs 00:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Not very sharp and badly deformed due to overdone PC. --Екатерина Борисова 02:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality for me. PC is well done.--Tournasol7 10:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова --Vitorperrut555 00:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Palazzo_Giustinian_Michiel_Alvise_e_Palazzo_Gaggia_Canal_Grande_Venezia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palazzo Giustinian Michiel Alvise e Palazzo Gaggia Canal Grande Venezia (by Moroder) --Sebring12Hrs 09:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 10:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Overprocessed dull light.--Jebulon

File:Palazzo_Giustinian_Michiel_Alvise_e_Palazzo_Gaggia_Canal_Grande_Venezia_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palazzo Giustinian Michiel Alvise e Palazzo Gaggia Canal Grande Venezia (by Moroder) --Sebring12Hrs 09:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 10:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Overprocessed dull light.--Jebulon 19:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Église_Saint-Didier_d'Oisy-le-Verger_(92345).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Église Saint-Didier d'Oisy-le-Verger--JackyM59 08:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    A bit dark and both sides leaning in --Poco a poco 11:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    Exposure correction made. Merci --JackyM59 14:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 00:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    Right side still leaning in, look at the chimney and also the church tower --Poco a poco 09:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Rettungswagen_BRK_Sprinter-20180805-RM-173219.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bavarian Red Cross ambulance on a mission in Franconian Switzerland --Ermell 08:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Shutter speed was a bit too low --Poco a poco 11:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion the image is good enough. The background is meant to be blurred by motion. The car and the writing on the side are a little bit blurred by motion. However, the driver is fully in focus and you can even see that he is wearing glasses (therefore the motion of the vehicle is not bad). Considering this is QI and not FP this is IMHo good enough. --D-Kuru 16:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Poco, the car is motion blurred. Alvesgaspar 15:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Action shot, sharp enough for an A4 size print, regarding the resolution. --Smial 10:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 13:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment The image of the day of 2026-03-09 is a QI, a FP and is probably a strong contender for VI for „motion blur“. Boss, how much motion blur shell we put in? ... Yes! - Yes, THAT much motion blur. I think we should may keep this in mind. --D-Kuru 16:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes of course, we have to promote every blurred picture of motorcycles, trains, planes, cars.... because image of the day of 2026-03-09 is VI, QI and FP, you are right, we are stupid... --Sebring12Hrs 17:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I never said anything about being stupid, but if Sebring12Hrs feels that way it's also fine for me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In case I wasn't clear enough with what I wrote: My point is that opposing the image because of the car being a bit blurry does not hold up that well compared against QI&FP images that are blurred much more. To re-mention it: The driver is not blurred as much as eg. the writing on the car. The car tires (neglecting rotational blur), the blue lights and the step at the back entry are also no blurred as much as you would expect by looking at the writing (so the writing might be misleading here regarding overall sharpness aka: a bad paint job). Considering the EXIF data (f/5 at ~170 mm) we would get roughly 4m DOF at a distance of 20m to the subject and roughly 1m DOF at 10m distance. This should at least somewhat cover the left side of the car if the driver is in focus. It might be interesting if the 'bluryness' of the image might be related to algorithm used for demosaicing the image. --D-Kuru 19:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:2026-03-04_D500-1965_Achim-Lammerts_Neupotz-Branta-canadensis.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Canada geese (Branta canadensis) --Syntaxys 06:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry - cluttered such that back bird is not recognizable; front bird has branch growing out of its head and weeds in front. --GRDN711 06:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I disagree. This scene shows the natural environment and habit of this species. --Syntaxys 08:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree, the composition os too busy. Alvesgaspar 15:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Microscopic_Life.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination This is a microscopic picture of living bacteria in pond water --Dev Jadiya 05:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose There is no information on the magnification used, nor the type of microscopy (e.g., phase contrast, bright-field, etc.). I have my doubts that the large objects in the image are bacteria (prokaryotes)--maybe the small specks, but I even there, I have my doubts. --Pdanese 06:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your inputs @Pdanese --Dev Jadiya 13:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree, some fundamental information about the subject is needed. Alvesgaspar 15:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Bozcaada_(31072023)_-_53084867958.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bozcaada, Çanakkale, Türkiye --Kadı 19:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 20:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 00:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unbalanced composition, poor image quality. Alvesgaspar 15:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Çimenlik_Kalesi_(30072023)_-_53081221810.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Çimenlik Castle --Kadı 19:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 01:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 00:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed, blury. Alvesgaspar 15:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting idea, but poor quality, sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 00:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Kilitbahir_Castle_(29072023)_-_53079133350.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kilitbahir Castle --Kadı 19:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 20:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The seems compressed and dust spot at the left top. --Sebring12Hrs 00:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Ayazma_Milli_Parkı,_Bayramiç_(28072023)_-_53077474035.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mount Ida, Turkey --Kadı 19:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 20:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp, burnt... --Sebring12Hrs 00:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20220611_Knautia_arvensis_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Common Drone Fly (Eristalis tenax) on a field scabious in the nature reserve Isarauen between Schäftlarn and Bad Tölz --FlocciNivis 16:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poconaco 16:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  for now The left front part of the thorax just below the eye looks peculiar with its angular structures with sharp black borders (artifacts?) I also wonder where the left hind leg is (below the body?) There is just a small triangular dark shape at the position where it should be. Please discuss! --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:01, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I think this is a good picture. In my opinion, part of the left front leg is visible next to the left eye. The left hind leg is then clearly visible. --Romzig 20:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment There cannot be any legs attached to the front of the thorax or to the head. I am not only concerned about the leg and the very weird looking structure that you think might be a leg (whatever it really is), but about the rest of the angular structures right behind the eyes. I could not find anything similar in the species gallery. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for a QI. I can't find anything strange in the anatomy. Alvesgaspar 15:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Earth_ovens_in_Bangladesh_-_DSC00429.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Earth ovens in Bangladesh. --ROCKY 15:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 16:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not attributed to an individual Commons user, thus not eligible for QI (per Plozessor's reviews of some other photos from this series). --Екатерина Борисова 03:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above --Jebulon 18:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_nectaring_position_of_Telicota_bambusae_(Moore,_1878)_-_Dark_Palm-Dart_WLB_IMG_8181.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Open wing nectaring position of Telicota bambusae (Moore, 1878) - Dark Palm-Dart. By User:Thamblyok --Atudu 01:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 03:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful butterfly, but DOF too low IMO. Hardly anything is really in focus. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. -- Alvesgaspar 16:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Palazzo_Balbi_Valier_Canal_Grande_Venezia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palazzo Balbi Valier Canal Grande Venezia (by Moroder) Sebring12Hrs 17:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp, yellow tint, also PC is overdone. --Екатерина Борисова 05:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 21:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough, disturbing geometry. Alvesgaspar 16:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • weak  Support The perspective correction is no worse than in many other photos that were easily approved here on QIC. Given the high resolution, the image sharpness is perfectly adequate for an A4-size printout. --Smial 13:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Green-backed_Tit_in_Lepcha_Jagat_October_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Green-backed Tit (Parus monticolus) in Lepcha Jagat, West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Artefacts (from CA removal ?) on the edges of branches. Otherwise good --Benjism89 08:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Benjism89: I am afraid other than noise reduction nothing artificial is done, its ok if you don't find it good enough for quality. - Tisha Mukherjee 06:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose l'll decline, so that you can go to CR if you want --Benjism89 12:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support This is a wonderful bird image. I can see some extremely tiny and weak residual red CAS on the branch when pixelpeeping, but I don't think that there are any artifacts. Good quality IMO --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --GRDN711 17:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Camarón_(Cuapetes_kororensis)_en_un_coral_(Heliofungia_actiniformis),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-24,_DD_139.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Shrimp (Cuapetes kororensis) on a coral (Heliofungia actiniformis), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 13:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, unintelligible image because it is a spot of light with legs--Lmbuga 15:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Sorry, not sure what you mean. On the lead there is a head of an anemome arm, otherwise the shrimp, which is tiny, is sharp --Poco a poco 11:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable quality for underwater photo imho Юрий Д.К. 15:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry, sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The subject is too unsharp. Alvesgaspar 16:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Pez_payaso_de_cola_amarilla_(Amphiprion_clarkii)_en_una_anémona_magnífica_(Heteractis_magnifica),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-21,_DD_131.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Clark's anemonefish (Amphiprion clarkii) in a magnificent sea anemone (Heteractis magnifica), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 07:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose There is lack of sharpness and detail on the body around the eye. Also, see color noise along the white and black stripes of the fish. --E bailey 06:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version but anyhow I find the sharpness of the eye very good for underwater --Poco a poco 19:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now Юрий Д.К. 15:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Saint_Radegund_church_in_Ste-Radegonde_(10).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Radegund church in Ste-Radegonde, Aveyron, France (by Krzysztof Golik) Sebring12Hrs 17:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Overprocessed : white fringes, PC overdone. Sorry Jebulon 18:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I would like to hear others opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 20:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Indeed, PC overdone  Oppose and cars does not add anything in the composition --Michielverbeek 07:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for the reasons mentioned above/ -- Екатерина Борисова 04:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above. Alvesgaspar 16:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Palazzo_Barzizza_Canal_Grande_Venezia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palazzo Barzizza Canal Grande Venezia (by Moroder) --Sebring12Hrs 17:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Right side is blurry IMO. What do you think? (Perhaps my English is inadequate)--Lmbuga 20:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
    Yes a bit blurry at right, but I would like to hear others opinions. Sebring12Hrs 17:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support dull light and little blur indeed, but good enough for QI, IMO --Jebulon 00:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga. --GRDN711 17:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:The_Pandurina_Player_-_Giuseppe_Maria_Crespi.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Pandurina Player - Giuseppe Maria Crespi --GoldenArtists 15:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, reflections of external light on the painting (upper right quadrant) --Lmbuga 19:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support But ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support There is a tiny area in the frame that might be overrexposed, but this should be acceptable for such a dark painting. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Berberomeloe_majalis_April_2017-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Oil beetle (Berberomeloe majalis). Cercal, Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar 16:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose  Level of detail too low --Gower 18:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)  Info Not very different from this one, which is a FP. Can we discuss, please?-- Alvesgaspar 19:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
     Comment A discussion request should be sent to the discussion section. --Екатерина Борисова 03:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Romzig 21:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing in focus, body or head. --Sebring12Hrs 11:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Gower and Sebring. --GRDN711 17:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Berberomeloe_majalis_April_2017-3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Oil beetle (Berberomeloe majalis). Cercal, Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar 16:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose  Level of detail too low, too shallow DoF --Gower 18:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)  Info Not very different from this one, which is a FP. Can we discuss, please?-- Alvesgaspar 19:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
     Comment A discussion request should be sent to the discussion section. --Екатерина Борисова 03:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Romzig 21:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 04:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing in focus, body or head. --Sebring12Hrs 11:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Gower and Sebring. --GRDN711 17:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:2026._Cruceiro_na_Rúa_de_San_Pedro._Santiago_de_Compostela._Galiza_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wayside cross on the Street of San Pedro, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia (Spain). --Lmbuga 01:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    A bit too bright IMO --Екатерина Борисова 02:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you. I'm thinking --Lmbuga 16:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I'd like others to give their opinions; I disagree. --Lmbuga 18:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
     Info My comment above is not (and was not) the opposing vote. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry but it has to go back to nomination section in this case. --Sebring12Hrs 20:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ahh, I can see posterization in the background, and per Catherine, it's very very bright, the focus seems not very good (a bit blurry). Too many issues IMO. I don't know if you can do something about it. --Sebring12Hrs 20:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough for me --Jebulon 00:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 04:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

°I hope to have access to the computer tomorrow and be able to repair the image. Lmbuga (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done New versión. Thank you all (@Екатерина Борисова: , @Sebring12Hrs: , @Jebulon: , @Rjcastillo: ). I'm sorry for breaking a QIC rule, but it was the best way to understand what was wrong with the photo, repair it, and learn: I needed more opinions. The comment about its brightness wasn't enough. The comment about posterisation opened my eyes. I learned thanks to the comment about posterization. Thank you--Lmbuga 05:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I hope you don't find the new version worse. If you have any suggestions, please let me know, because I might learn something.--Lmbuga 05:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
By the way, in my opinion the focus is on Christ's face and I think the sharpness is very good, but...--Lmbuga 06:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Far away better, thank you ;) --Sebring12Hrs 08:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:РекаИжма.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Izhma River in Sosnogorsk, Komi, Russia. By User:Зиновьев Николай --Екатерина Борисова 23:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Vitorperrut555 23:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: Unbalanced composition, noise (see the sky), questionable treetop edges, unnatural water features, impression of oversaturation... It doesn't look natural. --Lmbuga 00:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition not too bad, but overprocessed (per lmbuga) --Smial 13:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Compo isn't very bad but imho the image is overprocessed/oversharpened. Also the sky is noisy Юрий Д.К. 13:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I've made some fixes. Юрий Д.К. 13:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I think its good.--Jebulon 00:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me, too. --Lrkrol 09:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Lrkrol (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:A_house_in_Landesbergen,_Lange_Str_31.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A house in Landesbergen, Lange Str 31 --Lvova 20:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Car in the foreground is a bit distracting. --Cutlass 21:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
    I disagree --Jacek Halicki 22:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The car is not a problem here, IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 20:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the car...--Jebulon 00:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Car doesn't add anything to the composition and the right crop is not well done, not enough space --Michielverbeek 07:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Michielverbeek 07:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Vézelay_-_Basilique_Sainte-Marie-Madeleine_-_Chapiteaux_de_la_nef_-_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vézelay (Yonne, France) - Saint Mary Magdalene basilica - 12th-century capital in the nave : legend of saint Hubertus --Benjism89 06:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 07:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Chromatic/color noise. --Sebring12Hrs 10:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
     Info New version with a little extra denoising --Benjism89 18:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Jebulon 18:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Vézelay_-_Basilique_Sainte-Marie-Madeleine_-_Chapiteaux_de_la_nef_-_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vézelay (Yonne, France) - Saint Mary Magdalene basilica - 12th-century capital in the nave : the mystical Mill, with Moses of the left and saint Paul on the right --Benjism89 06:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 07:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Chromatic/color noise. --Sebring12Hrs 12:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
     Info New version with a little extra denoising --Benjism89 18:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Jebulon 18:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Mosquée_El_Atik_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination El Atik Mosque, Sétif, Algeria --Bgag 05:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose The overhead lines were probably unavoidable, but the traffic lights on the right were not, you should have moved to the left. Sharpness is borderline, also looks a bit overprocessed. Overall not a QI for me, sorry --Benjism89 07:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Tokyo_Tower_upview-20091017-RM-104208.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from below onto the Tokyo Towe --Ermell 06:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. It's very difficult to avoid some deformation --Michielverbeek 08:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted. --Kallerna 15:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    •  Comment Worm's-eye view category? --Ermell 10:33, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong CCW tilt. --Smial 14:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    •  Comment Lets discuss.Ermell 22:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support It's not always important that it's crooked. Sorry, perfect in my opinion. Cute--Lmbuga 00:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 03:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The tilt is disturbing. Alvesgaspar 09:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Gower 14:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support OK imho Юрий Д.К. 15:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Jebulon 20:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Gower 14:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Esponja_barril_(Xestospongia_testudinaria),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-24,_DD_134.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Barrel sponge (Xestospongia testudinaria), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 11:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Hazy --A S M Jobaer 19:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    ✓ New version, over the bar IMHO --Poco a poco 20:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose es: "Hazy" en inglés significa brumoso, neblinoso, opaco o difuso. --Lmbuga 00:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I know that, but still I don't get it. It looks sharp to me, but ok, maybe I'm just too limited to understand it. Reading comments like this I believe that people are not aware than underwater shots are not comparable to a shot of a bush in a park in a sunny day. Poco a poco 11:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for an underwater picture at lower resolution -- Basile Morin 11:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I think you may be right, and that the best thing is for me to withdraw my vote and for neither I nor others to ever comment on an underwater image again.--Lmbuga 06:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basile Morin 11:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Town_Hall,_Market_Square.._Muszyna,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Town Hall, Market Square.. Muszyna, Poland --Igor123121 04:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • tilted --Gower 17:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Poconaco 09:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Gower. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't understand: Those who say it is tilted are right. Why doesn't the right person listen to them and tell them something? --- I vote against because others are right and he does not communicate--Lmbuga 22:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Robert Flogaus-Faust: , @Lmbuga: ✓ Done --Igor123121 19:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support o.k. now.--Ermell 09:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info I removed my vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Lmbuga 05:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

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