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]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. 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 October 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 October 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 October 02 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]] 18:34, 2 October 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).


October 2, 2026

[edit]

October 1, 2026

[edit]

September 30, 2026

[edit]

September 29, 2026

[edit]

September 28, 2026

[edit]

September 27, 2026

[edit]

September 26, 2026

[edit]

September 25, 2026

[edit]

September 24, 2026

[edit]

September 23, 2026

[edit]

September 22, 2026

[edit]

September 21, 2026

[edit]

September 20, 2026

[edit]

September 19, 2026

[edit]

September 18, 2026

[edit]

September 17, 2026

[edit]

September 16, 2026

[edit]

September 14, 2026

[edit]

September 12, 2026

[edit]

September 11, 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 and author'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:Челябинск_2026._Памятник_Курчатову.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination «Split Atom» monument to Kurchatov. Chelyabinsk. --Vsatinet 22:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pangalau 00:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Freedom of panorama does not cover sculptures in Russia. Monument is from 1986, and does not appear to be exempt from ordinary copyright protections. --Crisco 1492 00:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Crisco 1492. --Harlock81 10:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 10:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Toyota_Mirai_2026_AINAGOC.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Toyota Mirai in 2026 Asian Games livery --TTTNIS 10:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rabbi Mendl 20:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Freedom of panorama in Japan does not extend to 2D works, and thus this is derivative of a non-free work. --Crisco 1492 00:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Crisco 1492. --Harlock81 10:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 10:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Dorfkirche_Uchte_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dorfkirche Uchte 02 --Lvova 07:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose PC is needed --Igor123121 18:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
    Welcome back with your revenge voting! If I see it one more time, I will go to sysops again. It is still possible to have a view from bottom to top. --Lvova 18:50, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it is really distorted. I also think the right bottom crop is not well done. Your RAW might show more of the main subject --Michielverbeek 06:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 10:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Sachgesamtheit_Schlosspark_Wilhelmshöhe_(Teufelsbrücke_22).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sachgesamtheit Schlosspark Wilhelmshöhe --Lvova 07:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose overexposure --Igor123121 18:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
    Welcome back after the ban with your favourite revenge voting! --Lvova 18:50, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 10:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_Большой_каскад,_вазы_круглые_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vases of Grand Cascade of Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose noisy and lacking sharpness --Igor123121 18:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
    Welcome back after the ban with your favourite revenge voting! --Lvova 18:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support While the base of the fountain and parts of the bush in front of it are out of focus, this image is good enough for QI IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_Большой_каскад,_вазы_круглые_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vase of Grand Cascade of Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose noisy and lacking sharpness --Igor123121 18:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
    Welcome back after the ban with your favourite revenge voting! --Lvova 18:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough, imho. --Harlock81 10:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 10:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_Большой_каскад,_вазы_квадратные_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vases of Grand Cascade of Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose noisy and lacking sharpness --Igor123121 18:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
    Welcome back after the ban with your favourite revenge voting! --Lvova 18:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not noisy, but caotic, imho.The main subject of the photo is covered too much by the streams of water from the fountain jet. A good start, but it can be improved. --Harlock81 10:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 10:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Das_Rathaus_(Nienburg_an_der_Weser)_09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Das Rathaus (Nienburg an der Weser) --Lvova 06:34, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Needs PC, but if done too much of the subject will likely be cut off. --Julian Lupyan 01:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
    Well, it's done (I didn't get why to discuss how it could be if too much, because it is already tight, so the crop difference cannot be too big). --Lvova 18:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 10:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:An_Indian_leopard_(Panthera_pardus_fusca)_resting_inside_a_cave_at_Jawai,_Rajasthan_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An Indian leopard (Panthera pardus fusca) resting inside a cave at Jawai, Rajasthan --Kingshuk Mondal 06:50, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Ciara Ní Riain 20:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe it's a difficult subject, but nethertheless it should be sharper. Other image of this serie was declined recently, so I think this one needs some discussion. --Екатерина Борисова 02:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The leopard is sharper here than in the other picture, but still, imho the picture is not good enough for QI, sorry. --Harlock81 10:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 10:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:2026-09-19_WikiCon_2026_in_Regensburg_STP_3392.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination WikiCon 2026 in Regensburg: group picture --Stepro 23:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Info I send this to discussion because I really want to know what I could have done better. --Stepro 16:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
    •  Info I see two problems with this image: a) composition, as several people near the image sides look cut with the image frame; b) distortion, as using short focus lens from relatively close distance created visible distortions of the people near image sides. On the other hand I understand that under the circumstances it might be the best shot possible, if where was no place for better position and no chance to use some other optical solution. --LexKurochkin 07:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support When I first looked at the image, it seemed to be overexposed. Now I realize its just all the white and bright light, and the image is exposed properly in my opinion. --Julian Lupyan 16:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Almost all of these people are strangers to me, and I have no idea what they look like in reality, but it seems that many faces are deformed, especially those on the sides. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I see no problems. A slightly longer exposure time would have been good, but the faces are okay to me. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop is too tight. --Milseburg 18:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per my explanation above, after long thinking over the case --LexKurochkin 07:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 07:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_Верхний_сад,_розы_16.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rose in Upper Gardens of Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:44, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rabbi Mendl 04:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Sorry - you could have made a better choice of flower for yet another image of an unidentified pink rose varietal from this garden. It is past its peak bloom and looks tired. --GRDN711 03:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Екатерина Борисова - We are in agreement that images don’t have to be pretty to be useful. However, they must be in keeping with the QI guidelines on Value - "Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects."
You say, it could be a rose disease or disorder but you don’t identify by description or categorization what that rose disease is. You also don’t identify what the name of this pink rose cultivar is. To have value worth a QI rating, this image of a uidentified rose must have more distinction that supports its value for use in Commons. --GRDN711 15:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
 Comment At first, you opposed simply because the rose is not at its prime, and only now you began to give additional reasons. Oh well. I'm not a biologist and I don't know exactly what kind of disease it is, but I put the photo in a category and hope that there will be people who will understand better. Wikipedia is always a collaborative effort. I personally often add categories and descriptions to other people's photos, and I'm constantly sorting general categories of "unknown flowers", buildings, locations etc. If a photo is missing one category right now, it doesn't mean that it's useless and has no educational value. So I think your arguments are still not valid. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I do not think we should always choose beautiful subjects to get QI mark on our photos, and, actually, there are lots of QIs with unpleasant subjects, so I cannot agree with GRDN711. On the other hand there is slight DOF problem, as the flower (its far side) is partly out of focus. Sorry, it prevents me from supporting the nomination. --LexKurochkin 13:15, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 13:04, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

File:NSB-FNC_veteran's_plaque_on_a_grave,_cemetery_of_Wanzele,_Lede,_2026.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Veteran's plaque on a grave, Lede, Belgium. --DimiTalen 05:48, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 16:09, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not enough sharpness for a stationary object IMO. --Екатерина Борисова 02:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина — Julian Lupyan 00:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова --LexKurochkin 10:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 10:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:20260428_Grube_Velsen_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A building of the Velsen mine in Saarbrücken-Klarenthal, Germany --FlocciNivis 09:35, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --AFBorchert 09:50, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Blurred, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 09:52, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is not that bad, but I miss the sky here. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Челябинск_2026.Здание_публичной_(ныне_научной)_библиотеки.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Public State Library building, Chelyabinsk. --Vsatinet 08:32, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • A speck of dust between the building and the top right-hand corner--undefined 11:57, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you. Fixed --Vsatinet 17:31, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
  • PC is needed --Sebring12Hrs 14:03, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
    Done --Vsatinet 17:34, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK now. --Екатерина Борисова 03:21, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed --Sebring12Hrs 07:54, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
    Could you please explain what perspective issues you see in this photo now? Vsatinet (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
     Comment PC is not completely done + borderline sharpness. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 09:41, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean Vsatinet 10:05, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
    The wall of the building are bending. It looks like the building is falling back. --Sebring12Hrs 15:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
    Oh! Thanks for the clarification. You are right. I tried to fix it. Vsatinet 21:51, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
     Support Even if I would like better sharpness it's ok, because you edit the perspective, thanks. --Sebring12Hrs 17:06, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --Ciara Ní Riain 04:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 15:45, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Bystrzyca_Kłodzka,_ul._Kolejowa_2_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2 Kolejowa Street in Bystrzyca Kłodzka by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 07:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tess Mattew 08:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Oversaturated/overexposed. --Smial 08:24, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
    Implicit oppose --Benjism89 15:41, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 20:28, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A little overexposed indeed, and composition looks random --Benjism89 15:41, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support This photo could have been better with sunlight coming not frontal but from another angle. This does not mean that it is oversaturated or overexposed. I see also no problem with the composition which includes the backyard and offers a nice background which gives context. Overall not perfect but I still think good enough for QI. --AFBorchert 13:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --AFBorchert 13:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Bystrzyca_Kłodzka,_ul._Kolejowa_2_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2 Kolejowa Street in Bystrzyca Kłodzka by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 07:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Rabbi Mendl 12:44, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
    (Implicit  Oppose per rules) I disagree. Oversaturated/overexposed. --Smial 08:24, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 20:28, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose The buildings in the background to the right show the image is overexposed — Julian Lupyan 17:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   — Julian Lupyan 17:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Monumento_al_Ancla,_Av._El_Miagro_Maracaibo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Anchor Monument, El Milagro Avenue, Maracaibo. --Rjcastillo 03:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Low level of detail --Tess Mattew 09:04, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New version. --Rjcastillo 21:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The anchor monument looks o.k. for me. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

File:বরেন্দ্র_গবেষণা_জাদুঘরের_বারান্দা_৩.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2026. By User:JIBON (WMBD) --JIBON 09:50, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Igor Tkachiov 14:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Lacks fine detail and needs better tilt/perspective correction. --C messier 21:29, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kościół_Nawiedzenia_NMP_w_Niemojowie_(02).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Church of the Visitation in Niemojów by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 08:01, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Pudelek 10:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A blurred patch on the sculpture in the cemetery, in the bottom right-hand corner --Lmbuga 13:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kościół_Nawiedzenia_NMP_w_Niemojowie_(03).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Church of the Visitation in Niemojów by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 08:01, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 13:33, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A blurred patch, bottom right-hand corner --Lmbuga 13:37, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Летний_сад._Коронный_фонтан10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Crown fountain (detail) in Summer Garden, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Dina Panayotis 18:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The water seems out of focus. Sorry. --Espandero 20:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Difficult subject, but per Espandero, sorry. --Harlock81 11:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Heermann's_gulls_(Larus_heermanni)_non_breeding_adults_and_immature_Tofino.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Heermann's gulls (Larus heermanni) --Charlesjsharp 10:12, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 11:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Complete the categories. Canada is big. --A.Savin 19:20, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and categories look o.k. now. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Ciara Ní Riain 18:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:ACEA,_IAA_2026,_Hanover_(20260914-P1087246).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: ACEA director general Sigrid de Vries at IAA Transportation 2026 --MB-one 13:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose For the yellowish cast, the peculiar face expression, and the light and dark objects in the background, sorry. --Harlock81 16:14, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
    • Adjusted white balance. The other points are not objective problems IMO --MB-one 20:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
      • Technically better, thanks. Composition is part of the evaluation. --Harlock81 11:07, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The lighting isn't exactly ideal for a portrait, but since it's not a studio shot, it's still acceptable. --Smial 12:44, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Harlock81 10:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Common_raven_(Corvus_corax_principalis)_Numa_Creek.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Eastern_kingbird_(Tyrannus_tyrannus)_Columbia_River.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) --Charlesjsharp 09:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pangalau 12:11, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Complete the categories. Canada is big. --A.Savin 19:25, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The head is not perfectly in focus, unlike the body. However, I like the representation of the bird in its habitat, and the overall quality of the picture justifies to recognise it as a QI, imho. --Harlock81 08:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Екатерина Борисова 03:49, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Park_w_Żelaźnie_(05).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Park in Żelazno by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 12:18, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Large shadows from the trees take up the entire foreground of the photograph. This is poor composition. Cropping might help. --Rabbi Mendl 16:10, 19 September 2026
  •  Oppose As above. Alvesgaspar 09:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
@Alvesgaspar and Rabbi Mendl: ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 13:45, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now. --C messier 21:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Sebring12Hrs 20:30, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows too prominent IMO --PantheraLeo1359531 19:31, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you crop it, it will look better, see note. Also the WB seems slightly to yellowish-greenish, IMO --Syntaxys 05:09, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Will support if cropped as proposed — Julian Lupyan 17:20, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still very poor composition. This is neither a photo of a park, nor of a tree, nor of a castle. A random snapshot, sorry. --Smial 11:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 24 Sep → Fri 02 Oct
  • Fri 25 Sep → Sat 03 Oct
  • Sat 26 Sep → Sun 04 Oct
  • Sun 27 Sep → Mon 05 Oct
  • Mon 28 Sep → Tue 06 Oct
  • Tue 29 Sep → Wed 07 Oct
  • Wed 30 Sep → Thu 08 Oct
  • Thu 01 Oct → Fri 09 Oct
  • Fri 02 Oct → Sat 10 Oct