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 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.

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 November 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 November 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 November 22 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]] 17:18, 22 November 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).

November 22, 2025

[edit]

November 21, 2025

[edit]

November 20, 2025

[edit]

November 19, 2025

[edit]

November 18, 2025

[edit]

November 17, 2025

[edit]

November 16, 2025

[edit]

November 15, 2025

[edit]

November 14, 2025

[edit]

November 13, 2025

[edit]

November 11, 2025

[edit]

November 10, 2025

[edit]

November 8, 2025

[edit]

November 6, 2025

[edit]

October 31, 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:Cour_de_ferme_en_Normandie_-_Claude_Monet.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cour de ferme en Normandie - Claude Monet --JackyM59 19:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 19:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 21:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Budapest_Csikós_statue_2016.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Budapest, Csikós statue. --Gower 12:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 12:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It looks blurry to me. --JoachimKohler-HB 19:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 12:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Dwór_w_Łącznej_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Manor in Łączna 2 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 10:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp, sorry. --Brihaspati 11:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 11:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Бухара,_люк_на_Мехтар_Анбар.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Manhole cover at Mekhtar Anbar Street, Bukhara, Uzbekistan. --Красный 09:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, not sharp --Brihaspati 10:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 11:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

File:World2Fly_EC-OND_at_Lisbon_Portela_Airport_2025_278.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination World2Fly EC-OND at Lisbon Portela Airport --Mike Peel 07:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too distorted due to wide angle, lacks perspective correction --Poco a poco 17:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. The image is interesting for that very reason. I think it's done on purpose. --Lmbuga 01:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't like that the man at the bottom of the image has his feet cut off. --Lmbuga 01:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It seems overprocessed (smartphone use). --Sebring12Hrs 12:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 12:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Tokio_Wohnhaus_Daimler-20091019-RM-102720.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Residential building in Tokyo with a parked Daimler Sovereign --Ermell 06:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Good, but too tight crop at the bottom. Tires are cut. --Gower 10:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Due to cut at bottom. --Augustgeyler 07:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Lets see some more opinions. I did not see your edit on time. The left crop is still very tight. The bottom one is good now. --Augustgeyler 22:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral OK, but still tight crop. --August (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Crown_Towers_a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 233 ft tall building in New Haven, Connecticut. --Wobbanight 17:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Superbass 20:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness, and it needs PC. --Sebring12Hrs 20:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question What does PC stand for? Heard of other terms except for that one. -- Wobbanight 21:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  • PC means "perspective correction", it is applied in post-production in software such as Photoshop, Lightroom, GIMP, or Darktable. --Benlisquare 23:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective distortion, also not very sharp and some minor noise -- Jakubhal 05:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs and Jakubhal. In addition, there are objects (cars...) at the bottom that make it difficult to see the building properly. --Lmbuga 04:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Hayabusa_docked_at_Aomori.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The ferry vessel Hayabusa docked at Aomori, Japan --Benlisquare 02:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 02:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sure about the WB here, it looks too bluish to me. --Milseburg 15:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose White balance off per Milseburg, also right side is leaning out. Both easily fixable of course. --Plozessor 04:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Tenement_house,_12_Józefa_Street,_Kraków,_Poland_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tenement house, 12 Józefa Street, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 14:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too intense PC. --Augustgeyler 21:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, I would like to have a discussion. --Igor123121 06:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 04:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Technically ok but questionable composition. --Plozessor 05:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Tenement_house,_1884_design._Karol_Żychoń,_5_Karmelicka_street,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tenement house, 1884 design. Karol Żychoń, 5 Karmelicka Street, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 16:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 16:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too intense PC led to unrealistic geometry. --Augustgeyler 07:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

File:La_presó_és_tortura.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Graffiti in Catalonia, translating to "Prison is torture" By User:Brunnaiz --Earth605 15:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too small. --Sebring12Hrs 15:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Sebring, What do you mean "too small"??? --Earth605 07:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Far too small for QI! Pixel graphics below 2 megapixels are not acceptable according to the rules. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too small. @Earth605: I think it's clearly stated in the guidelines. Please take some time to read them. You may also check Commons:IG. That will help you select photos with potential in the future. -- Jakubhal 05:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1 --Plozessor 05:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 05:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Tenement_house,_10_Szpitalna_street,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tenement house, 10 Szpitalna street, Kraków, Poland.jpg --Igor123121 16:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 21:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad crop (bottom) and too intense PC. --Augustgeyler 10:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 06:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Pod_Elefanty_tenement_house,_38_Grodzka_Street,_Old_Town,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pod Elefanty tenement house, 38 Grodzka street, Old Town, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 16:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 16:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The composition is weak. More importantly, the building appears compressed because the camera was pointed steeply upwards from something like a frog’s-eye perspective, yet the image was processed as if the camera had been positioned at the height of the upper windows (through perspective correction). --Augustgeyler 10:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler--Lmbuga 04:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 06:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Goodwin_Hotel_with_Goodwin_Square_in_the_Background.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Historic hotel in downtown Hartford, Connecticut with the imposing 522 ft tall Goodwin Square in the background. --Wobbanight 13:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: low level of detail, excessive noise reduction. --Peulle 13:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info This was changed from "/Decline" to "/Discuss" by the nominator without leaving the usual comment (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AQuality_images_candidates%2Fcandidate_list&diff=1118428985&oldid=1118425685 --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition, nice colours, but per Peulle. --Augustgeyler 07:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 06:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Beaune_-_Hôtel-Dieu_-_Parement_d'autel_de_l'Agneau_Mystique.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Beaune (Côte-d'Or, France) - Hôtel-Dieu (former hospital) - The Mystic Lamb antependium, 15th century --Benjism89 06:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose insufficient quality, color noise, partial lack of sharpness, sorry --Gower 10:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment In my opinion noise and sharpness are acceptable here, taking this to CR --Benjism89 19:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Gower. --Sebring12Hrs 23:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others --Lmbuga 22:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 06:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Beaune_-_Hôtel-Dieu_-_Tenture_de_Saint-Éloi.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Beaune (Côte-d'Or, France) - Hôtel-Dieu (former hospital) - Central part of the tapestry of Saint Eligius, 16th century --Benjism89 06:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pixel erros/artifacts in the dark areas, especially at the upper left. --Sebring12Hrs 09:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose insufficient quality, color noise, sorry --Gower 10:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
    @Sebring12Hrs : I'm not sure these were pixel errors but anyway, should be fixed now. @Gower : I believe sharpness and noise are more than acceptable at 2560x1280px, you can even see a lot of weaving lines. Of course, this is not noiseless and perfectly sharp at full 6 696×3 348 size, but most images promoted here are not, even those taken outside under a blue sky --Benjism89 19:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Gower, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 23:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, sorry --Lmbuga 23:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 06:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Егорова,_18_14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tower part of listed building (bottom-up view), Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • how about PC? --Gower 16:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
    How about reading the description carefully? --Екатерина Борисова 02:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't understand what is your point about the description (where I corrected a typo). Per Gower. --Sebring12Hrs 00:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
    I meant that this is the tower of a tall building photographed from the ground, it is mentioned in the description, and it is a perspective view that, in my opinion, does not require further straightening. There is another photo of the same tower, also a perspective view, and it has been approved. Gower's photo was approved today, where the tower, also taken from below, is also not vertical. I can find many more similar photos. In this regard, your claims are not very clear to me. --Екатерина Борисова 03:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
    First, in the Gower photo you mentioned, the water tower is completely vertical. Look at the black structure in the center or the top of the water tower; their ends are vertical. Second, in your photo, the perspective is only a few pixels short of being corrected. In fact, it's fairly accurate on the left, but not on the right. --Sebring12Hrs 07:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
    The water tower is vertical here, but not there. But I didn't use this example to say, "Oh, what a terribly non-vertical tower." For my taste, this is a normal perspective view. In addition, I reread the guideline again and found nothing there that a deviation of several pixels is unacceptable and does not allow the photo to be promoted. It literally says "Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant." It's insignificant here, as you say yourself. So what's the problem? -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment In case it helps (I don't know if I understand you): Perhaps it does not need perspective correction, but are the vertical lines in the centre of the image straight or slightly tilted?--Lmbuga 23:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
    I believe they are straight, but maybe someone can find a few pixels tilt there. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  • In my honest opinion it's a bit tilted CCW. Fixable IMO. If you need help, I'll try. Besides, the image is good: it pays to make a small change.--Lmbuga 02:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  • But it's true, I don't think the tilt is enough to decline it. It's barely noticeable because perspective correction isn't necessary (IMO).--Lmbuga 03:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support For the above reasons, but hoping that the correction will be attempted (I think there is a correction that can be made, but not important)--Lmbuga 03:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 06:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Bytom_Assumption_church_confessional.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bytom, Assumption, church; space under matroneum. --Gower 14:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness. Sorry. --Ermell 15:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell. --Plozessor 04:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support ok Igor123121 14:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 19:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell. And the chandelier is completely blurry. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Lmbuga 04:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 06:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Black-throated_Sunbird_in_Kolakham_March_2024_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Black-throated Sunbird (Aethopyga saturata) male in Kolakham, West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 09:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment CAs under the chest, otherwise good --Benjism89 10:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry to take this to CR for this matter, but please fix the pink CA under the chest that I mentioned before --Benjism89 19:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Tisha Mukherjee: CA to fix as Benjism89 wrote. --Gower 10:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA. --PetarM 17:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CAs IMO. --Lmbuga 04:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Jacare,_Cabedelo_(20150802-DSC05529).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset over Rio Paraíba in Cabedelo, Brazil --MB-one 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Green reflection of the sun (I think) almost in the centre of the image --Lmbuga 17:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you wish, I don't think it would be difficult for me to remove it.--Lmbuga 18:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done lens flare removed --MB-one 21:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Plozessor 04:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
    @Plozessor: Please, check your comment. I suppose that you are supporting, not opposing. --Harlock81 06:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Oops! --Plozessor 11:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Lmbuga 19:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Tejedor_búfalo_de_cabeza_blanca_(Dinemellia_dinemelli),_parque_nacional_Serengueti,_Tanzania,_2024-05-26,_DD_63.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: White-headed buffalo weaver (Dinemellia dinemelli), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 07:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Wonderful bird, but most of it is unsharp. --Gower 08:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Have you read this: COM:QICGVP (especially #4), please, think about it. Why the rush? --Poco a poco 21:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: yes, I have. I don't believe that significant unsharpness can be solved in any way except making a new photo of something, sorry. --Gower 11:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I agree with Gower in this case. The head is in focus and very good, but the body is completely blurry, which means that the center of the image and the conspicuous red feathers are also blurred. I also cannot understand what could be changed about this. Sorry --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question I couldn't follow, sorry. Do you believe that it isn't a QI because the head is behind the body? Not sure whether I would consider such an argument valid Poco a poco 19:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
     Comment No, of course not. BTW, you got three QIs for photos of the same species today, among which there is File:Tejedor búfalo de cabeza blanca (Dinemellia dinemelli), parque nacional Serengueti, Tanzania, 2024-05-26, DD 72.jpg. However, File:Tejedor búfalo de cabeza blanca (Dinemellia dinemelli), parque nacional Serengueti, Tanzania, 2024-05-26, DD 71.jpg with the head in front is actually much better IMO, which might have been the reason for nominating it a long time before the other photos.
    My opposing vote is for the completely blurry body of the bird, even at 2,560 × 1,707 pixels. The bird looks also quite noisy in spite of your denoising, which can be seen easily on the red feathers in full resolution. You take lots of great photographs, but I am afraid that this is just not among your best photos, no matter whether it gets assigned the QI template or not. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Eyes are in focus. un-sharp body is adding to the depth of scene. --Augustgeyler 09:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support In wildlife photography the important is to have the eye in focus, which is the case here -- Giles Laurent 02:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only the head and one foot are in focus, the rest of the bird is not slightly blurred but completely oof. This could have been avoided for example with higher f-number and longer exposure than 1/500s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plozessor (talk • contribs) 05:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • And what shutter speed do you recommend when using a 300mm telelens? Poco a poco 18:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • That depends on lens type, sensor size and whether there is an image stabilizer. You know your equipment better than me and probably you're right that more than 1/500s wasn't possible. Still I don't think that this is a QI with the majority of the bird extremely blurry. --Plozessor 04:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --August (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Autun_-_Fontaine_Saint-Lazare_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Autun (Saône-et-Loire, France) - Saint Lazarus fountain --Benjism89 06:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. It is leaning a little to the right (see also the door in the background) and the background with the constraction works is distrecting. Why f13 at 38mm? --JoachimKohler-HB 10:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I edited perspective, so that most elements look straight. But as in many old places, not all buildings and structures are straight in reality --Benjism89 18:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good IMO --Lmbuga 22:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the upper half of the fountain is unsharp. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is acceptable, but concluding from the background, the image seems really leaning to the right. I can't believe that the the lamp post, the metal gate, the tree behind the gate, the door behind the gate, and the bollard are all leaning in reality. --Plozessor 05:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe you're right, but if I edit the picture the way you suggest, then the fountain itself will be leaning (to the left). --Benjism89 09:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, in reality it seems to be leaning, if you check other pictures or Streetview. --Plozessor 11:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info OK, I gave it a third try. Now the lamp post on the right is perfectly straight. I also slightly sharpened the top of the fountain. --Benjism89 18:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, acceptable now! --Plozessor 14:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfavorable light situation, distracting background.--Milseburg (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The image is technically OK. But per Milseburg (shadow, background, cut-off car). --Augustgeyler 15:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. --PetarM 16:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow spoils the compo, sorry Poco a poco 17:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 14 Nov → Sat 22 Nov
  • Sat 15 Nov → Sun 23 Nov
  • Sun 16 Nov → Mon 24 Nov
  • Mon 17 Nov → Tue 25 Nov
  • Tue 18 Nov → Wed 26 Nov
  • Wed 19 Nov → Thu 27 Nov
  • Thu 20 Nov → Fri 28 Nov
  • Fri 21 Nov → Sat 29 Nov
  • Sat 22 Nov → Sun 30 Nov