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 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 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 August 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 August 26 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]] 03:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


August 26, 2025

[edit]

August 25, 2025

[edit]

August 24, 2025

[edit]

August 23, 2025

[edit]

August 22, 2025

[edit]

August 21, 2025

[edit]

August 20, 2025

[edit]

August 19, 2025

[edit]

August 18, 2025

[edit]

August 17, 2025

[edit]

August 16, 2025

[edit]

August 15, 2025

[edit]

August 14, 2025

[edit]

August 13, 2025

[edit]

August 11, 2025

[edit]

August 9, 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:Sütigerwis.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A collection of houses in Sütigerwis, a hamlet of Triesenberg, Liechtenstein. -- TheBritinator 00:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Sorry, noise, CAs, perspective distortion. --Lmbuga 00:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
    I have modified the image to address the perspective distortion but I really can't say I see much in the way of noise or CAs. Nevertheless, I tried to fix them too. --TheBritinator 01:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Noise is the least important. Chromatic aberration still exists, and perspective correction is still necessary, IMO. Let others have their say. Thanks for your pictures. --Lmbuga 02:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Sadar_Ghat,The_Heartbeat_of_Dhaka's_River_Life_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sadar Ghat, located on the banks of the Buriganga River in Dhaka, is one of the busiest and most iconic river ports in Bangladesh. Serving as a major transportation hub, it connects the capital with numerous southern districts via hundreds of passenger and cargo boats that come and go daily. The area is always alive with activity—vendors selling goods, passengers boarding launches, and workers loading and unloading cargo—offering a vivid glimpse into the everyday hustle of river life. Rich in history and culture, Sadar Ghat reflects both the challenges and energy of urban life in Dhaka.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This media has been uploaded as a part of Project Korikath --A S M Jobaer 16:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 17:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Оversaturated and overprocessed, very bad white balance (too much green and yellow). Looks completely unnatural --George Chernilevsky 17:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark for my personal taste, and oversharpened, but apart from that, clearly wrong color balance. --Plozessor 11:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Hafen,_Ribnitz-Damgarten_(LRM_20240106_140609).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ribnitz harbour in Winter --MB-one 12:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Substandard sharpness. Dull framing: horizont through the middle. --Grand-Duc 20:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done improved exposure, contrast, sharpness and crop --MB-one 12:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Sandro Halank 19:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:View_of_Triesenberg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An unobstructed view of the main section of Triesenberg, Liechtenstein. -- TheBritinator, 15:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Not great sharpness, but overall good quality. --E bailey 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The noise should be reduced --Ermell 19:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Laufach_ND05278_F.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Laufach, tree group 671N0062/ND-05278 'Kastanienbaum' (right) in LSG-00561.01 'LSG innerhalb des Naturparks Spessart (ehemals Schutzzone)' --KaiBorgeest 20:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry: blurred, too low sharpness for QI, insufficient DoF --F. Riedelio 16:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I disagree. It is a creative technique to keep the motif sharp and the foreground soft. And the motiv is absolutely crisp, you can count the leaves. --KaiBorgeest 21:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If the trees are the main subject, why is there so much unnecessary foreground in the picture? --Syntaxys 04:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
 Comment In the featured pictures gallery you can learn a lot about advanced image composition. Let's take this featured phot as an example: [1]. There is a lot of soft foreground. The photo would lose it's deepness with a sharp foreground. And the rock without foreground would be quite boring. You find many other examples particularly in the Places/Natural Gallery there. Such compositions are a bit more than just maximum DOF from the feet to the sky oder motif without any environment--KaiBorgeest 14:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This "DOF" looks artificial. --Smial 14:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Trees are oversharpened and blurry at the same time, and also have CA's. Not QI in my eyes, sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Paris_-_Musée_d'Orsay_8486.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jeune fille de Mégare by Louis-Ernest Barrias in the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, France. --Phyrexian 20:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Terragio67 20:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Insufficient sharpness on the face (focus seemingly on the hands). And unsuitable name (too generic) per Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Image_page_requirements. --Grand-Duc 20:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support Name ok, more opinions about sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 23:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality, I don't see any problem with the sharpness, the main subject is in focus. I would have just tried to remove the person in the BG with AI. --Syntaxys 02:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per others --Sandro Halank (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Paris_-_Musée_d'Orsay_8490.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of Jeune fille de Mégare by Louis-Ernest Barrias in the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, France. --Phyrexian 20:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Some better sharpness filtering (highpass?) would have been great. And unsuitable name (too generic) per Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Image_page_requirements. --Grand-Duc 20:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support Name ok, more opinions about sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 23:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Lmbuga (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Sandro Halank 19:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 19:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Paris_-_Musée_d'Orsay_8829.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination La Nature se dévoilant à la Science by Louis-Ernest Barrias in the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, France. --Phyrexian 20:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Terragio67 20:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Focus misplaced (on the cloth below the hip). And unsuitable name (too generic) per Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Image_page_requirements. --Grand-Duc 20:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support Name ok, more opinions about sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 23:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, the face is not completely in focus, which is certainly also due to the open aperture. With this camera model, you could easily shoot at ISO 800 without any problems in terms of noise performance, and with the zoom lens used, it is necessary to work in the aperture range of 8-11 to achieve acceptable image quality. --Syntaxys 02:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Lmbuga (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support fine for me --Sandro Halank 19:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 19:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Paris_-_Musée_d'Orsay_8672.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rear view of Le Prince impérial et son chien Néro by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux in the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, France. --Phyrexian 20:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Feels too soft, lacks a crisp of sharpness. May be remediated with a highpass filtering. And unsuitable name (too generic) per Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Image_page_requirements. --Grand-Duc 20:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support Name ok, more opinions about sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 23:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support As sharp as marble should be. Lvova 15:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
 Support Lmbuga (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 19:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

File:JAPANNUAL_2023_in_the_Filmcasino_in_Vienna,_Austria_-_Mizuko_Yamaoka_interview-left_s2_PNr°1087.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mizuko Yamaoka at the film festival JAPANNUAL 2023 in the Filmcasino in Vienna, Austria --D-Kuru 07:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Face not sharp enough. --Sandro Halank 22:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfavorable composition --Milseburg 13:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_basking_of_Pseudergolis_wedah_(Kollar,_1844)_-_Tabby_WLB_MG_4768.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Open wing basking of Pseudergolis wedah (Kollar, 1844) - TabbyI, : --SVKMBFLY 06:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Too dark. --Ermell 15:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment
    Needs categorisation. --Lvova 20:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support After categorization over the bar for me. --Lvova 13:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark. Sorry. --Ermell 20:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfavorable lighting --Milseburg 13:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem. The level of detail is good. --MB-one 12:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --MB-one 12:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Wikimania_2025_—_Day_0_049.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wikimania 2025 — Day 0I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:. By User:نعيم قربوسي --Houss 2020 18:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality (despite the hand) --MB-one 15:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Insufficient description and categorization (who is depicted in the image?) --Sandro Halank 22:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Литейный_37,_ограда01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fence of Pashkov house garden, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 03:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Only the first part is sharp, the distant part is blurred. Smaller aperture and different focus point would help. --Tagooty 03:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  • In many discussions here, many users have said that the distant part of a photo doesn't have to be sharp. So I won't argue, but I'd like to hear other opinions now too. --Екатерина Борисова 04:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree: a shallower depth of field is an established and useful compositional technique. In this case, it progressively blurs a repeating pattern, creating a nice 3D effect. With small sensors one should also be wary of using small apertures: f/4 in a 1/2.5" sensor is the full-frame equivalent of f/24, a higher f-number would decrease image quality due to diffraction even further --Julesvernex2 (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Екатерина Борисова, one small piece of feedback: if you slightly crop the left of the image you can get rid of that distracting sliver of sunlit wall --Julesvernex2 06:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good, but minor CAs IMO (shadows on the left side and bottom left side)--Lmbuga 01:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 10:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_basking_position_of_Parasarpa_zayla_Westwood,_1850-_Bicolor_Commodore_D.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Parasarpa zayla Westwood, 1850- Bicolor Commodore. By User:Subhendukhan --Atudu 06:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Eyes not sharp. Sorry. --Ermell 08:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see how the eyes in particular are unsharp. Overall sharpness level is acceptable for a subject of this size. Let's discuss this. --ReneeWrites 08:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per ReneeWrites. --MB-one 12:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 12:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:JAPANNUAL_2023_in_the_Filmcasino_in_Vienna,_Austria_-_Masumi_Ormandy_performance_06_PNr°1095.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The JAPANNUAL 2023 film festival in the Filmcasino in Vienna, Austria during the performance of Masumi ORMANDY. --D-Kuru 07:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The off-centered framing and above all the big black blurry item in the foreground make it no QI to me --Poco a poco 11:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I believe the frame is in rule of 3rd and a little more space in front of the subject is required. --Tisha Mukherjee 12:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Framing is ok to me, but yes, this head on the right ruins it I'm afraid --Benjism89 18:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The "big black blurry item in the foreground" is a person visiting the show the person was intentional, may it not be exactly at this position. Crop is a mix of 3rds and golden selection IIRC and was intentional to keep the logo in the image. --D-Kuru 10:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Benjism89 --Sandro Halank 22:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --MB-one 12:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Corrugated_metal_door_on_building_construction_site,_Cidade_de_Bucareste_Street,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Corrugated metal door on building construction site, Cidade de Bucareste Street, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 03:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Only the rightmost third of the image is in focus. Although I like the mood of it, it is not a QI imo --FlocciNivis 16:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info That was by design: the image was taken at an oblique angle so that only the main subject - the door handle - would be in focus. A straight-on shot would be fully in focus but would have, in my opinion, a worst composition --Julesvernex2 20:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Use of DOF seems intentional. --Smial 10:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Smial.--Ermell 20:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial and Ermell --Sandro Halank 22:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. -- Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-AMG_S214_53_Hybrid_MYLE_Festival_2025_DSC_9659.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-AMG S214 53 Hybrid at MYLE Festival 2025 --Alexander-93 18:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unfavorable lighting, especially in the front, the car is much too dark, the background is unflattering and the cropping of the photo is very tight. -- Spurzem 07:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support QI in my opinion. --Cvmontuy
  •  Support I think this one is above the bar for QI. Although I see Spurzem's points, I think the car is photographed with its 'natural' surroundings, so the background can't really be helped. As long as it doesn't interfere with the view of the car, I'm okay with it.--Peulle 11:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for QI --Sandro Halank 22:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --MB-one 12:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_nectaring_of_Pieris_canidia_(Linnaeus,_1768)_-_Asian_Cabbage_White_WLB_DSC9655.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing nectaring of Pieris canidia (Linnaeus, 1768) - Asian Cabbage WhiteI,: --SVKMBFLY 06:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 06:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs categorisation. --Lvova 20:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
    Don't like background noise now. Lvova 13:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Categories are missing.--Ermell 20:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lvova. --MB-one 12:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 12:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Abejarucos_chico_(Merops_pusillus),_reserva_natural_Masái_Mara,_Kenia,_2024-05-20,_DD_105.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Little bee-eater (Merops pusillus), Masai Mara, Kenya --Poco a poco 05:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, the subject is blurry. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Not so sure about that, I applied some sharpening, QI IMHO, please, let's discuss in CR as you didn't give me a chance to improve it prior to declining it --Poco a poco 19:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It seems ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 14:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Agreed with Sebring12Hrs ReneeWrites 23:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tisha Mukherjee; sorry. Nice birds, but this is a 3.5 MPx image from a 50 MPx camera and the birds are a rather small part of the image. The bird in front looks especially blurry with lack of details. This is slightly below the bar for me. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Detail is poor--Lmbuga 20:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Bitonto_-_Guglia_dell'Immacolata_&_Concattedrale_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bitonto (Apulia, Italy) - The Immaculate Conception column and the Southern façade of the Saint Valentine co-cathedral --Benjism89 04:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The column is smooth and distorted. --Lvova 14:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose pls discuss. --Lvova 10:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 17:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp column.--Ermell 15:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The fact is that the column and the statue on it next to the façade are the main subjects in this image, so this area absolutely has to be in focus. It's still a good image for Wiki*, but not good enough for QI, sorry. --Syntaxys 03:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose New review: You're right, column not in focus--Lmbuga 01:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Mon 18 Aug → Tue 26 Aug
  • Tue 19 Aug → Wed 27 Aug
  • Wed 20 Aug → Thu 28 Aug
  • Thu 21 Aug → Fri 29 Aug
  • Fri 22 Aug → Sat 30 Aug
  • Sat 23 Aug → Sun 31 Aug
  • Sun 24 Aug → Mon 01 Sep
  • Mon 25 Aug → Tue 02 Sep
  • Tue 26 Aug → Wed 03 Sep