Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

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

Purpose

[edit]

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

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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

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

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

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

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

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 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 December 2025.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 2025.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 19 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 11:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

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

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

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

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


December 19, 2025

[edit]

December 18, 2025

[edit]

December 17, 2025

[edit]

December 16, 2025

[edit]

December 15, 2025

[edit]

December 14, 2025

[edit]

December 13, 2025

[edit]

December 12, 2025

[edit]

December 11, 2025

[edit]

December 10, 2025

[edit]

December 9, 2025

[edit]

December 8, 2025

[edit]

December 7, 2025

[edit]

December 6, 2025

[edit]

December 4, 2025

[edit]

December 3, 2025

[edit]

December 2, 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:Lim-6,_Polish_Aviation_Museum,_39_Jana_Pawła_II_Avenue,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lim-6, Polish Aviation Museum, 39 Jana Pawła II Avenue, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 05:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose burned out highlights at the full wing. --Augustgeyler 23:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Irish_Embassy,_Tokyo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ireland House, Tokyo --Davekern 07:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    A stain in the sky to be erased. --JackyM59 09:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
    Fixed, Thanks! --Davekern 09:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry, but on closer inspection, you can still see some on the left and top right. There's also a problem with the F-11 and F-16 when they have a blue uniform. --JackyM59 13:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
    Went on a closer look, and I feel I've managed to catch all the bits of dirt. Not sure I understand the comment about the Blue Uniform and f11/f16 --Davekern 14:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
    Sometimes f16 causes dust to appear on the sensor. I'll let someone else give their opinion. --JackyM59 18:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
    PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 19:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
    What do you mean by PC? Sorry, the acronym isn't something I'm familiar with :) --Davekern 06:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2023-10-29_MAG_apparatus_finals_Parallel_bars_(Martin_Rulsch)_104.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Parallel bars exercise during the MAG apparatus finals at the Wase Gymcup 2023 in Melsele, 2023. By User:DerHexer --Augustgeyler 18:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 19:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it is sharp enough for an indoor action shot. --Augustgeyler 00:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It might be difficult or even impossible to achieve a better result with the camera, lighting and situation. Still the picture does IMO not meet the sharpness, noise and detail criteria for QI. --Plozessor 13:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 13:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts_-_Crosse_dite_de_Robert_de_Molesme.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dijon (Côte-d'Or, France) - Museum of Fine Arts - So-called crozier of Robert de Molesme, founder of Cîteaux abbey in 1098 --Benjism89 06:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tisha Mukherjee 07:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --ROCKY 07:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, not very sharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 09:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange effects from noise reduction. I think this picture would be a good candidate for AI-based noise reduction. --Plozessor 13:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition, but the result of noise reduction is not good enough. --Harlock81 13:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 13:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Путилово._Церковь_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bell tower of church of the Theotokos of Tikhvin, Putilovo, Leningrad Oblast, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sharpness is poory --Jacek Halicki 08:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. --Екатерина Борисова 03:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jacek. --Augustgeyler 06:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness in the upper part is poor, but the main issue is chroma noise. --Plozessor 06:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 06:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Mistbiene_(Eristalis_tenax)_Sonnenbraut_(Helenium)-20250829-RM-155514.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mistbiene (Eristalis tenax) on a sunflower blossom --Ermell 06:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 07:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange Spot in the upper middle --Grunpfnul 15:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, at the upper edge above the wing there is an area with accidentally added noise (or that was excluded from noise reduction). --Plozessor 06:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 06:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Moscow - 2025-9-15 - Details of the facade of the National Hotel.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2025-9 - Details of the facade of the National Hotel --Юрий Д.К. 23:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Nice image, but perspective distortion on the right should be fixed. --Augustgeyler 01:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Doing… I will try to fix --Юрий Д.К. 15:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Hi, new version here, looks straight for me. --Юрий Д.К. 12:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you. But it did not improve as much as it needs. The verticals on the right are still leaning in. --Augustgeyler 12:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • correction: *leaning out. --August (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. Yes it's a bit leaning, but not very disturbing. Walls are straight overall. Feet free to go to CR if you disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 09:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose And once again, Sebring12Hrs, you are interrupting an ongoing review process. Back to the topic: please don’t focus only on the verticals at the outer right edge of the building. Instead, look at the outer columns on the right — they are clearly leaning outwards. --Augustgeyler 00:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. The columns don't have to be perfectly straight, especially from this angle, taken from the side. --Юрий Д.К. 00:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • OK, but don't you see how distorted the lower right part looks – as if the building would be less wide at the bottom than in the upper floors. --August (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment This time I disagree. I'm interrupting the process because for me the current version of this image is QI. I'm not going to wait for the author to change it when I don't agree. Afterwards, I could have notified you, it would have been more fair. --Sebring12Hrs 01:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Unfortunately now the centre part is tilted ccw. --Augustgeyler 23:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • I agree but it only solution to fix you statement about columns! :). I reverted to original which in my opinion not required perspective correction. Lets hear other opinions. Юрий Д.К. 23:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 06:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Lautenthal_(Dezember_2022).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hiking trail near Lautenthal in the Harz Mountains --Romzig 22:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 22:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterization in the sky, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 22:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebrings12Hrs, clearly visible colour banding. --Augustgeyler 18:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 18:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

File:McDonalds_Matcha_McFlurry.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An image of a McDonalds Matcha McFlurry cup laid in cement. --TheNuggeteer 12:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pdanese 13:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't see any detail except in the hole, and it's not a pleasant detail (edge). Lots of burnt white spots. CAs at seven o'clock in the container. Is the container off-centre by any chance? --Lmbuga 20:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. Not very sharp even in the cup. --Sebring12Hrs 20:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 18:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

File:O3_Business_Campus,_view_from_29_Listopada_Avenue,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination O3 Business Campus, view from 29 Listopada Avenue, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good composition, but  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 14:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The sharpness is good here compared with some other ptomoted photos. --Sebring12Hrs 11:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Sebring12Hrs. --Wobbanight 14:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness could be better but IMO it's over the bar. --Plozessor 03:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a huge dust spot in the top left corner, oppose until it is fixed Jakubhal 07:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Temporary  Oppose due dust spot (per Jakubhal). --Plozessor 08:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 08:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Felseninsel_Stein,_Wörlitz_(August_2023)_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Villa Hamilton on Felseninsel Stein in Wörlitz Park --Romzig 21:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 21:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not done. --Sebring12Hrs 13:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Image dosen't really need PC in my opinion. --Wobbanight 14:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs or the image should be a more intentional frog's a perspective. --Augustgeyler 18:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 18:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_posture_Basking_of_Ypthima_huebneri_Kirby,_1871_-_Common_Four-ring_WLB_IMG_1747a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing posture Basking of Ypthima huebneri Kirby, 1871 - Common Four-ring --Sandipoutsider 12:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hobbyfotowiki 21:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enopugh. --Sebring12Hrs 22:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Over the bar for me. --Plozessor 05:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. The butterfly's shadow is very poor. It is a BLUE-WHITE mist, so the butterfly's context is not valid and the butterfly is too small. The quality is not good IMO. --Lmbuga 22:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Štrbské_pleso_&_Hotel_Patria_2022.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Štrbské pleso & Hotel Patria --Gower 11:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 12:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 16:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit too soft. --Sebring12Hrs 10:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Undecided here, but this has the same issue as the other pictures - sharp in the middle but pretty blurry at both edges. --Plozessor 06:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I do think the WOW factor somewhat saves the image. --Wobbanight 14:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Attractive colours and contrast. An impressionistic photograph --JackyM59 18:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose An amazing composition. However, it looks as if the focus has been set on the foreground, leaving the building and much of the landscape behind it unsharp. --Augustgeyler 00:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 17:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_Basking_activity_of_Caprona_ransonnettii_(R._Felder,_1868)_-_Golden_Angle_WLB_IMG_2111a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Open wing Basking activity of Caprona ransonnettii (R. Felder, 1868) - Golden Angle --Sandipoutsider 10:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Borderline quality, but ok for me. --Красный 12:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
    significant  Level of detail too low --Gower 11:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Gower. --Sebring12Hrs 09:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The brown background behind the head of the butterfly is not good. But I see details enough. -- Spurzem 21:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Gower. Poor quality, sorry. --Lmbuga 22:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Podzamcze_street,_view_to_W,_Nowy_Świat,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Podzamcze street, view to W, Nowy Świat, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 06:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pangalau 07:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is lacking sharpness and detail. --Augustgeyler 14:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 03:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Zwierzyniecka_street,_view_to_E,_Nowy_Świat,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Zwierzyniecka street, view to E, Nowy Świat, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 06:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The image is lacking sharpness and detail. --Augustgeyler 14:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Over the bar IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 17:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Zygmunta_Krasińskiego_Avenue,_view_to_N,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Zygmunta Krasińskiego Av, view to N, Kraków, Poland.jpg --Igor123121 06:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pangalau 07:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is lacking sharpness and detail. --Augustgeyler 14:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 03:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:San_Lorenzo_in_Panisperna_-_esterno.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination San Lorenzo in Panisperna - esterno (by SonyGM) --Sebring12Hrs 21:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose shadow covers almost half of the object --Gower 11:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 13:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 09:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavorable lighting. There are situations where a quality image is not possible. -- Spurzem 21:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Augustgeyler 00:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 00:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Porte_Guilllaume_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dijon (Côte-d'Or, France) - William's gate --Benjism89 07:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 07:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The actual shape of the arch is very much distorted by perspective correction. Compared to your other photo, it looks like some kind of caricature. --Екатерина Борисова 00:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I really don't understand how we can see a distorsion here. All perspective corrected images would be declined. --Sebring12Hrs 09:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The photo in your link is simply taken from the front. And on the one that is nominated, the photographer is slightly to the side. This is almost a 3/4 view. --Sebring12Hrs 09:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, it's probably a side view, but then why is the right pillar of the arch looks like it was taken directly from the front? I have nothing against neat PC, which is often needed, but here the result is very unnatural. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • This is a slightly side view : I'm in front of the right pillar, so yes, you can't see any of the two sides of the right pillar which is perfectly normal for something which has a square shape ... I chose this point of view because, as you can see at the bottom left of the picture, there is a large tourist information board in front of the gate. The other picture you mentioned was taken from the other side of the gate. --Benjism89 12:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I think the side view in many cases can be done so that a building or structure does not need so intensive PC. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • You have absolutely no idea about the laws of optics. Really! It is very annoying to repeatedly read the same misjudgement in the reviews of the same person. This image was taken with a 35 mm lens on a full-frame camera, which is a very moderate wide angle. If you shoot the subject in portrait format from this distance, you will probably not need to make any corrections at all. --Syntaxys 20:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Maybe I have no idea about photography overall. But I have every right to look at such photos as a viewer, and I also have the right to express my opinion, despite the fact that it may annoy someone. And yes, as a viewer, I don't like it when a realistic view of a building is sacrificed to verticals, and the building looks skewed. What's the point of straightening structures so much that the picture ceases to have anything to do with reality? Especially considering that photos for Commons should have not only aesthetic, but also educational value. That's my point and I will stand for it. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • It's really not in my mind to cut anyone's rights. But personal preferences and opinions are not a basis for a quality assessment process. This requires knowledge that is derived from generally accepted findings. The design and aesthetics of an image are certainly open to debate.
    From your statement, it can be concluded that an image of an architectural object with an uncorrected perspective has a higher educational value than the correct representation of the same object. Really? --Syntaxys 04:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I have been studying the history of architecture for more than ten years. I probably still don't know enough, but I've learned one important thing. All the buildings and structures that we recognize as beautiful and consider architectural monuments are harmonious and proportional. Proportionality is the basis. By making extreme corrections in the name of holy verticals, we destroy this proportionality, and harmonious-looking buildings become ugly in such images. I'm not against perspective correction per se, but that's why correction should be done very carefully. And I'm sure that skewed proportions are a crime against architecture. And why would you do that anyway? Just for another QI status? The status will be forgotten, but the ugly pictures will remain, millions of people will see them and say "what the hell? Why is this building called a masterpiece, it's some kind of lopsided bullshit." So yes, I believe that such images have low educational value and are generally harmful. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • This project is called QI, and as I understand it, we are talking about the quality of images rather than their aesthetics. That's what we do at COM:FP. There is a saying, ‘Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,’ so it's very individual.
    The quality of an image is judged according to purely objective criteria: Is this image correctly exposed? Is this image sharp? Is the main subject in focus? Is the cropping correct? Does it contain sufficient detail and is it not overly compressed? Are converging lines corrected? Has noise been removed? Is the continuous tonal gradation in homogeneous areas correct? Are dust spots removed? And there's a lot more to it than that, but certainly not the choice of shooting perspective. If that really were a significant basis for determining quality, millions of images would probably have to be deleted or many would lose their QI status. --Syntaxys 07:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I tell you about proportions, and you answer - God knows why - about individual perception. Proportions are objective, they can be measured and calculated. If an object has proportions, for example, 3:1, no "individual perception" will change these proportions by 2:3. And if you hit an object with a sledgehammer, its proportions will also be completely objectively disrupted, and individual perception also has nothing to do with it. In this case, we see a (clear, sharp, well-edited) image of an arch whose proportions are broken: it has straight pillars, but the upper part is strongly inclined to the left. This has nothing to do with the laws of optics or the laws of perspective perception by the human eye. It's just a picture ruined by extreme correction, that's all. And, by the way, the following is written in the QI guideline: "Images of architecture should usually be rectilinear. Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant." I don't see any valid purpose here, and even more so, these distortions are not insignificant. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina. --Augustgeyler 10:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina. --Harlock81 20:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 09:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Horizontal distortion, sorry. --Lmbuga 11:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done I withdraw my vote. @Екатерина Борисова: , @Augustgeyler: . @Harlock81: I have uploaded a new version in which I have worked on the perspective and removed a dust spot in the sky inside the arch. @Benjism89: If you do not like this version, please restore the previous one. I am not voting because I made the correction myself. --Lmbuga 11:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Benjism89: I admit that the result is a bit strange. Perhaps it would have been better not to correct the horizontal perspective so much and to have left the top of the left column halfway. If you want me to try, let me know. It doesn't take me any time at all. --Lmbuga 11:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • There is a problem with the metadata. I don't know if I can fix it. I think I can remove my name, but I don't know if I can recover the original metadata. Shall I try? --Lmbuga 12:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • New version: EXIF data recovered, except for the mention of GIMP --Lmbuga 12:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)+
  • Sorry, new version, I forgot to remove the dust spot. --Lmbuga 12:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Lmbuga, but also in your version, the pier on the right-hand side is tilted. --Harlock81 14:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hello Lmbuga, first of all, thank you for your time. I think it's wonderful that a voter is looking for a solution! However, I find your version a little less realistic than Benjism89's one. In your version, the left pillar seems slightly wider than the right one (although this is just an optical illusion, as I measured them and their widths are almost equal), and in my opinion, the unrealistic distortion initially pointed out by Ekaterina Borisova isn't completely corrected. That said, your version is still okay for QI in my opinion, and I won't change my vote. --Sebring12Hrs 17:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I agree with you. I already mentioned that it was a bit of a strange version. I think I made a mistake in the correction. I could try again, but I don't know if it's worth you wasting your time on what I do, and besides, I could try different things. I don't think Benjism89 would like it. Let's let him recover the first version. --Lmbuga 17:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
There are more problems than the width of the left column. The top and bottom horizontal lines are straight, but the lines in between are not. I'm not sure I can do much better than that. Working on an unedited image is not the same as working with one that has been slightly distorted.--Lmbuga 17:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I must admit I'm quite surprised that this picture is seen as an example of strong distorsion created by excessive perspective correction. I shot this at 35 mm, which is not a wide angle focal length. Here's the geometry-unedited picture, with no perpective correction and no cropping : File:Dijon - Porte Guilllaume - 1 - no-PC.jpg. I can understand that strong perspective correction can create awkward-looking results, and I sometimes decline QIC for this reason, but not here.
@Lmbuga: Thanks a lot for your time, but I prefered to switch back to the first version (without the dust spot !). In most cases, I believe horizontal perspective correction should only be used when the photograpĥer was centered on the subject, to correct the tiny angle left, but here I wasn't centered, and your version looks strange to my eyes. --Benji
  •  Support Looks okay for me and above the QI-bar. Coordinates would be fine. --Milseburg 17:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Benjism89: No problem (there would never be a problem). I would have liked to have done it well, but that's not the case. --Lmbuga 15:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 17:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Terrain_de_pétanque_d'Auberchicourt_(97469).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Terrain de pétanque d'Auberchicourt--JackyM59 19:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment I suggest cloning out that lonely branch from the right --Gower 13:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done 16:9 cropping to remove the branch at the top right --JackyM59 18:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 22:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left part is leaning out. Looks like as if it needs to be rotated cw and afterwards some minor PC. --Augustgeyler 01:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me and above the QI-bar. --Milseburg 17:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 17:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_park_zdrojowy_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spa Park in Duszniki-Zdrój 5 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 09:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Significant distortion and lack of sharpness in the lower third --Aciarium 16:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable to me. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 01:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per above.--Ermell 21:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Aciarium. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Pretty decent. --Wobbanight 14:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Igor123121 16:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Waterfront_Viewpoint_Sign_at_Pike_Place_Market,_Seattle,_Washington,_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Waterfront viewpoint sign at Pike Place Market, Seattle --Julian Lupyan 20:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Underexposed, composition --Aciarium 14:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. I believe the exposure is true to life, and if it were to be raised, the subject (the neon sign) would not be portrayed well. An elaborated critique for composition would be appreciated. Please discuss. --Julian Lupyan 22:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the composition and exposure exactly as it is. It catches the atmosphere of the place. --Plozessor 04:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor. --Smial 12:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed IMO, otherwise ok. --Sebring12Hrs 13:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Pdanese 00:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ok but there is a white fringe at left due to the PC. Could you remove it please? --Sebring12Hrs 10:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment No problem. I cancel my opposing vote. --Sebring12Hrs 08:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Julian Lupyan 04:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Statue_of_a_zouave_(Algiers).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of a zouave in St. Eugene Cemetery, Algiers --Bgag 03:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC
  •  Oppose The statue and its pedestal are blown out and lack details. Although it can be fixed. --Екатерина Борисова 03:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Overexposed . --Augustgeyler 18:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I have uploaded a new version. --Bgag 05:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral  Thank you. OK now. Still a bit low on detail. --Augustgeyler 10:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Acceptable now IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, unrealistic textures and borderline sharpness regarding the camera used. --Sebring12Hrs 18:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Harlock81 20:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The comp is good, but the image is a tad bit overprocessed. --Wobbanight 14:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I reverted this nomination back from inconclusive to discuss, because last vote was younger than 48 hrs.--August (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
    No problem. I thought the 8-days rule was overwhelming the other one. Thanks. --Harlock81 18:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable to me. --Rjcastillo 03:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

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