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 January 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 January 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 January 26 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]] 04:20, 26 January 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).


January 26, 2026

[edit]

January 25, 2026

[edit]

January 24, 2026

[edit]

January 23, 2026

[edit]

January 22, 2026

[edit]

January 21, 2026

[edit]

January 20, 2026

[edit]

January 19, 2026

[edit]

January 18, 2026

[edit]

January 17, 2026

[edit]

January 16, 2026

[edit]

January 15, 2026

[edit]

January 14, 2026

[edit]

January 12, 2026

[edit]

January 11, 2026

[edit]

January 8, 2026

[edit]

January 6, 2026

[edit]

December 30, 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:DSC01023_Alfa_Romeo_Giulia,_Carabinieri_Nucleo_Operativo_Radiomobile,_Rear_Left,_Overhead_View.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An Alfa Romeo Giulia of the Italian Carabinieri's department Nucleo Operativo Radiomobile --Aciarium 12:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Deformed, lacks PC --Poco a poco 17:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment This perspective was deliberately choosen in order to show more of the vehicle's roof. At such a tilted angle, PC would lead to an actually deformed subject. Discussion please. (This is what it would look like with PC)--Aciarium 18:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:DSC00988_Jeep_Renegade,_Polizia_Penitenziaria,_Front_Right.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Jeep Renegade of the Italian Polizia Penitenziaria --Aciarium 12:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 13:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks PC --Poco a poco 17:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Would look distorted with PC at this angle. --Aciarium 18:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 18:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Street_lamp_in_a_rainy_night_with_a_firefighting_vehicle_passing_below,_Alameda_Dom_Afonso_Henriques,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Street lamp in a rainy night with a firefighting vehicle passing below, Alameda Dom Afonso Henriques, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 09:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The composition isn't convincing for QI --Milseburg 11:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC).
  •  Comment I wholeheartedly disagree with that --Julesvernex2 19:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg. --Augustgeyler 11:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Rock_Bush-Quail_in_Saswad_August_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Perdicula argoondah (Rock Bush-Quail) in Saswad, Maharashtra, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pdanese 09:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness of this one is too low IMO, sorry --Benjism89 09:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Construction_of_the_S7_expressway_junction,_Kocmyrzowska_street._December_19,_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Construction of the S7 expressway junction, Kocmyrzowska Street, December 19, 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rohit14400 07:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is not eligible for QI. Too much empty blue sky. --Milseburg 11:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Better, but the pixels you wasted at the top are missing at the bottom. It would have been better to hold the camera lower down when taking such a photo. --Milseburg (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Construction_of_the_S7_expressway_junction,_Kocmyrzowska_street,_December_19,_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Construction of the S7 expressway junction, Kocmyrzowska Street, December 19, 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rohit14400 07:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is not eligible for QI. Too much empty blue sky. Also tilted. --Milseburg 11:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Construction_of_the_S7_expressway_junction,_Kocmyrzowska_Street,_December_19,_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Construction of the S7 expressway junction, Kocmyrzowska Street, December 19, 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rohit14400 07:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is not eligible for QI. Too much empty blue sky. --Milseburg 11:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg. --Augustgeyler 11:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Challenging conditions with high contrast daylight and smog. Needs de-hazing and adjustments in leveling to rise to QI for me. --E bailey 17:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Citrine_Wagtail_at_Keoladeo_national_park_(Dec,24).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Citrine Wagtail at Keoladeo national park, India. --Rohit14400 06:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurry and too dark. Sorry. --Ermell 08:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO, crop should be tighter for this subject to help it pop given the color in background and subject. --E bailey 17:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Little_Grebe_at_Keoladeo_national_park_(Dec,24).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Little Grebe at Keoladeo national park, India. --Rohit14400 06:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. Sorry. --Ermell 08:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Ermell. Not enough clarity in subject. --E bailey 16:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Milky_way_as_seen_from_Satsar_camsite,Ganderbal_district,_Kashmir_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Milky way as seen from Satsar camsite,Ganderbal district, Kashmir, India. --Rohit14400 06:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky seems blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 09:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Milky_way_as_seen_from_Gangabal_lake,Ganderbal_district,_Kashmir.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Milky way as seen from Gangabal lake,Ganderbal district, Kashmir, India. --Rohit14400 06:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky seems blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 09:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The foreground is super dark. Very bottom right is "crushed" black. Also feels tilted. For me, important to strike balance with foreground and sky. --E bailey 16:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Lysozyme_Protein_Crystal_in_Hanging-Drop_Crystallization.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A well-formed lysozyme protein crystal with sharp facets sits inside a hanging-drop solution. --Rohit14400 06:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad crop, CAs... --Sebring12Hrs 20:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)}
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Петергоф._Особняк_Гейрота_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Commemorative plaque to Viktor Borodachev, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sharpness is a bit too low IMO for this kind of "easy-to-take" pictures. This kind of subjects also requires, in my opinion, both vertical and horizontal PC (you didn't perform the latter here) --Benjism89 09:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment When the board is not hanging at eye level, but higher, it naturally cannot be shot directly and then must be straightened during processing. IMO, it is quite straight both vertically and horizontally. In addition, the letters on marble plaques lose clarity over time due to the influence of the weather. --Екатерина Борисова 02:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment We have to accept that we are not able to get QIs out of any situation. --Augustgeyler 11:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Sure, I totally agree with that. I wanted to say that the letters on the plaque seem blurry not because the picture itself is blurry, but because the letters in reality are slightly blurred under the influence of the weather. (I have the same problems with my father's monument in the cemetery, the letters on the marble plaque have blurred over time.) -- Екатерина Борисова 03:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Pez_payaso_de_cola_amarilla_(Amphiprion_clarkii)_en_una_anémona_perla_de_cristal_(Heteractis_aurora),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-25,_DD_251.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Clark's anemonefish (Amphiprion clarkii) in a beaded sea anemone (Heteractis aurora), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 07:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too blurry. Sorry. --Ermell 09:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I made some improvement, what do you think? Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 22:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Cathedral_of_Asti_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral of Asti, Piedmont, Italy. --Tournasol7 11:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 12:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Another badly deformed by PC building. The lower part is strictly perpendicular to the ground, but the turrets at the top are tilted to the left, the right tower is distorted at the top, the left portal is shown at an angle, and the right one is not, which is unnatural for perspective photography. In addition, the entire top is blurred and partially overexposed. --Екатерина Борисова 03:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Quedlinburg,_Schloss_(November_2022).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Schlossberg with Quedlinburg Castle and Abbey, seen from the Sternkieker Tower --Romzig 07:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 22:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Foreground  Underexposed, background  Overexposed --Aciarium 21:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark.--Ermell 09:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark. --Gower 13:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 00:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Stemma_Simbolo_di_Alessandro_Sergardi_vescovo_di_Montalcino_posto_sull'esterno_della_Abbazia_di_Sant'Antimo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Coat of Arms Symbol of Alessandro Sergardi, Bishop of Montalcino, placed on the exterior of the Abbey of Sant'Antimo. -- Anna.Massini 10:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 12:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 17:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is truly borderline, but the noise and CAs tip the scales against promotion to QI, sorry. AVDLCZ 17:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 17:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Алматы,_ущелье_Аюсай,_герань_лесная.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wood Crane's-bill in Ayusai gorge. Ile-Alatau national park, Bostandyk District, Almaty, Kazakhstan. By User:ElenaLitera --Красный 06:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Argenberg 12:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now for misidentification. This does not look at all like Geranium sylvaticum. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Seems like it, more looks like Geranium nodosum. Thank you. Красный 12:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Is this a proper ID based on a key or a checklist of local species from the genus? Geranium nodosum would be quite far from its natural habitats in southern Europe, possibly a garden plant or a garden escape. If this is not a positive identification, I rather suggest something like Category:Unidentified Geranium instead of speculative identification. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 14:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Mury_miejskie_w_Radkowie_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Defensive walls in Radków 1 --Poconaco 19:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 19:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Temporarily oppose because of wrong signature. The author is Jacek Halicki, not Poconaco. --Екатерина Борисова 03:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)}
  •  Oppose Nominator claims to be the author, which is not true. --Augustgeyler 18:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Екатерина Борисова 03:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Zespół_zamkowy_w_Ratnie_Dolnym_(01).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castle and park in Ratno Dolne 1 --Poconaco 19:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 20:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Temporarily oppose because of wrong signature. The author is Jacek Halicki, not Poconaco. --Екатерина Борисова 03:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nominatior claims to be the author which is not true. --Augustgeyler 18:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Екатерина Борисова 03:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Park_zamkowy_w_Ratnie_Dolnym_(02).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castle and park in Ratno Dolne 2 --Poconaco 19:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 20:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Temporarily oppose because of wrong signature. The author is Jacek Halicki, not Poconaco. --Екатерина Борисова 03:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 18:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Kaplica_cmentarna_w_Radkowie_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cemetery chapel in Radków 1 --Boston9 10:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pangalau 13:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The author is Jacek Halicki, not Boston9. Thus, we see 15 photos by Jacek, nominated on January 21: five photos have Jacek as the author, five have Boston9 and five more have Poconaco. This is at least strange, but at most unfair. --Екатерина Борисова 03:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 18:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Kaplica_cmentarna_w_Radkowie_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cemetery chapel in Radków 2 --Boston9 10:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 19:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The author is Jacek Halicki, not Boston9. Thus, we see 15 photos by Jacek, nominated on January 21: five photos have Jacek as the author, five have Boston9 and five more have Poconaco. This is at least strange, but at most unfair. --Екатерина Борисова 03:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 18:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Basilique_du_Sacré-Cœur_2026-01-03-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Basilique du Sacré-Cœur in Paris, France --ReneeWrites 22:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 23:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spot. See note. Otherwise good. --Sebring12Hrs 21:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
     Support Nice ! --Sebring12Hrs 20:34, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ Done --ReneeWrites 18:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 23:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 14:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Kłodzko,_ul._Matejki_1_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 1 Matejki Street in Kłodzko 2 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 17:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose shlight PC needed --Gower 18:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see where is needed here. QI to me. --Sebring12Hrs 19:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Discuss.... --Sebring12Hrs 19:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs Please make up your mind whether you want to support or oppose ;) --Plozessor 15:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Left side not perfectly sharp, but in general good. --Plozessor 15:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
     Comment The implicit opposite vote is of course about Gower comment. How can you think it was me who voted against? To avoid voting on promotion over his comment, I sent it to CR. --Sebring12Hrs 19:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Sure, I guessed something like that. Still there was a supporting and an opposing vote from you, which needed to be fixed (as you have done). --Plozessor 05:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft, DJI can do better. Alvesgaspar 15:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality imho Юрий Д.К. 18:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I like the image and sharpness seams low but OK. What let's me question this nomination is the high level of distortion in the lower part especially at the car on the right. --Augustgeyler 18:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Qi quality IMO--Ermell 20:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 22:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Pez_loro_(Scarus_quoyi),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-21,_DD_174.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rusty parrotfish (Scarus ferrugineus), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 10:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry. Seems to have some type of blur / LoD. --Pdanese 13:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Implied support per rules Good quality. --Igor123121 15:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for an underwater shot, IMO. BigDom 08:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurred indeed. The closest fin is out of focus. Alvesgaspar 00:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Main subject seems ok for me. --Milseburg 11:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurred, unfortunately. If this is QI, then any image is QI -- George Chernilevsky 17:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  • That is definitely exaggerated, I believe --Poco a poco 22:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacking sharpness and clarity in subject. --E bailey 16:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   -- George Chernilevsky 17:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

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