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 27 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]] 13:06, 27 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 27, 2025

[edit]

December 26, 2025

[edit]

December 25, 2025

[edit]

December 24, 2025

[edit]

December 23, 2025

[edit]

December 22, 2025

[edit]

December 21, 2025

[edit]

December 20, 2025

[edit]

December 19, 2025

[edit]

December 18, 2025

[edit]

December 17, 2025

[edit]

December 16, 2025

[edit]

December 14, 2025

[edit]

December 13, 2025

[edit]

December 12, 2025

[edit]

December 11, 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:Krakow_2024_061.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Angel Relief Sculpture in Old Town Market Square --Scotch Mist 07:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The net in front of the motif ruins the image. --NorbertNagel 13:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The netting is permanently in front of the sculpture, presumably to keep the pigeons away from the already eroded sculpture, so this should not be a factor in assessing the quality of the image (read photo). --Scotch Mist 15:37, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This shouldn't have gone to discussions since there is no vote. Anyway, good image. The net is there in reality, its presence on the picture is a not a photographic defect. --Plozessor 06:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 12:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Red-legged_cormorant_(Poikilocarbo_gaimardi)_in_flight_Chiloe_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Red-legged cormorant (Poikilocarbo gaimardi) --Charlesjsharp 23:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 00:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but one of the wing is cut, which too disturbing. Please discuss. I'm not sure everyone here think it's QI ;) --Sebring12Hrs 11:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop per Sebring12Hrs. --Plozessor 06:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Vienna_House_Andel’s_Cracow,_aerial_view,_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vienna House Andel’s Cracow, aerial view 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low and too soft --Aciarium 17:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, please discuss --Igor123121 23:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Strzelecki_garden,_aerial_view_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Strzelecki Garden, aerial view 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Aciarium 17:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, please discuss --Igor123121 23:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Jüdischer_Friedhof_Nienburg_160.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jüdischer Friedhof Nienburg --Lvova 10:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much negative space --Aciarium 09:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment A nitpick. There's too much negative space to read the inscription on the stone, but it's fine for seeing the context, the density of the burial, and the level of care. --Lvova 13:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • No issues with the composition and crop, but with the perspective - it's leaning out on both sides. Thus temporary  Oppose until that is fixed. --Plozessor 09:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Horst-Feldberg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Taunus with the Großer Feldberg in a distance of 71 km, seen from the Horst in the Vogelsberg Mountains. In the foreground the Nieder-Moos pond, Hesse, Germany --Milseburg 13:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Purple fringing on the branches, DoF --Aciarium 09:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can't see the fringing. I think the DoF is well choosen to lead the view to the mentioned distance. Please discuss. --Milseburg 11:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA (purple fringes) at the branches in the upper edges. Otherwise acceptable. --Plozessor 09:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Saab_JA-37_Viggen._Polish_Aviation_Museum,_39_Jana_Pawła_II_Avenue,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saab JA-37 Viggen, Polish Aviation Museum, 39 Jana Pawła II Avenue, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Needs PC --Aciarium 09:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_ul._Zielona_14_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 14 Zielona Street in Duszniki-Zdrój 1 by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 18:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much negative space, also  Level of detail too low --Aciarium 17:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, please discussion. Worse photos get QI here. --Jacek Halicki 09:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_ul._Zielona_14_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 14 Zielona Street in Duszniki-Zdrój 2 by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 18:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much negative space; also  Level of detail too low --Aciarium 17:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, please discussion. Worse photos get QI here. --Jacek Halicki 09:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Level of detail is not good, but OK here. But burned out highlights in the centre are not QI.--August (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:CH.BE.Boenigen_2021-08-15_Seaplane-Meeting_5283_16x9-R_8192x4608.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Seaplane-Meeting in Boenigen 2021, Switzerland. By User:Roy Egloff --Augustgeyler 18:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much space around subject; sharpening+denoise distorts the text near the propeller --Aciarium 16:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. There The subject is well proportioned within the frame. --Augustgeyler 01:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:20240511_male_baltimore_oriole_south_meadows_PD204233.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Male Baltimore oriole, South Meadows Trail, East Hartford, CT USA --Pdanese 12:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low, otherwise nice colors and composition. Sorry! --Aciarium 16:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality --Юрий Д.К. 18:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 02:12, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:56, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Emila_Zegadłowicza_street,_view_to_W,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Emila Zegadłowicza street, view to W, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 10:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --DimiTalen 10:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Purple fringes on branches, and the tree is blurry. Not QI in my eyes, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 02:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_Basking_activity_of_Castalius_rosimon_(Fabricius,_1775)_-_Common_Pierrot_(Female)_WLB_IMG_5022a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Open wing Basking activity of Castalius rosimon (Fabricius, 1775) - Common Pierrot (Female) --Sandipoutsider 10:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Insufficient sharpness --Jacek Halicki 10:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Well above the bar IMO. Please discuss. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Lubicz_Park_I,_23_Lubicz_street,_aerial_view_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lubicz Park I, 23 Lubicz street, aerial view 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Sharp panorama. But composition is not QI: 1/2 is just sky. I suggest cropping. --Augustgeyler 17:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition did improve. It is good now.  Thank you. But resolution is just over the bar and Level of detail remains too low. --Augustgeyler 07:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 02:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Асвестохори,_Renault_Kangoo_и_кот_на_Кносу.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cat near Renault Kangoo at Knosu Street, Asvestochori, Pylaia-Chortiatis, Central Macedonia, Greece. --Красный 07:04, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Suboptimal composition; LOD too low to allow for a meaningful crop --Aciarium 17:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Юрий Д.К. 18:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Aciarium Jakubhal 10:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Maybe the description should be improved because this picture is not about the cat, but about the car parked in narrow and leaning street (with cat by the car, of course). With such a story, the photo looks good enough IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Асвестохори,_кот_на_Кносу_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cat near Renault Kangoo at Knosu Street, Asvestochori, Pylaia-Chortiatis, Central Macedonia, Greece. --Красный 07:04, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much negative space around the cat --Aciarium 17:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Юрий Д.К. 18:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:57, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_ul._Zielona_10_(2).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2025_-_Lobnoye_mesto.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2025 - Lobnoye mesto --Юрий Д.К. 15:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much cut-off of the church on the left --Aciarium 17:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment This photo about Lobnoye mesto, not church! --Юрий Д.К. 18:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate lighting and composition. Sky overexposed. --Smial 22:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2025_-_M22-7700_Tulip_boat.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2025 - M22-7700 Tulip boat --Юрий Д.К. 15:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition: Too zoomed in for a panorama shot, too much space around the boat for a detail shot --Aciarium 17:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Cropped, but QI for me anyway. --Юрий Д.К. 18:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Efremov_-_2025_-_Thujas_at_Kurgan.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Efremov - 2025 - Thujas at Kurgan --Юрий Д.К. 15:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low regarding the trees in the background; also, composition is too top-heavy for my taste --Aciarium 17:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Disagree. Not clear where "top-heavy" here, no PC has been performed here. --Юрий Д.К. 18:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Did not intend top-heaviness in regards of PC, but of overall composition: For my taste, too much sky is shown in the image, relative to the foreground. I personally would crop it from the top to some extent, but I need to underscore that this is rather a matter of taste and perhaps I am being overly critical. Interested in more opinions on this case. --Aciarium 09:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts_-_Tombeaux_des_Ducs_de_Bourgogne_-_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dijon (Côte-d'Or, France) - Museum of Fine Arts - Hall of the tombs of the Dukes of Burgundy : tomb of John the Fearless and Margaret of Bavaria is in the foreground, the tomb of Philip the Bold being behind --Benjism89 11:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose All relevant subjects are cut-off: The tomb in the foreground as well as the ornamental organ facade in the background. --Aciarium 17:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support You are right, but it's ot easy to have all subjects in the frame here IMO. I want to hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 01:58, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --August (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Split_BW_2024-10-02_13-00-13.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Split (by Berthold Werner) --Sebring12Hrs 13:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Moving person in long exposure is disturbing. --DimiTalen 06:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ok I understand, but I would like too hear others opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 01:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:04, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:40._ADAC_Stormarn_Rallye,_Luetjensee_(TR256782).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Specia stage 1 of the 40. ADAC Stormarn Rallye in Lütjensee, Schleswig-Holstein --MB-one 15:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition doesn't work for me, and IMO subject is too small --Aciarium 16:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Юрий Д.К. 18:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_ul._Zdrojowa_5_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 5 Zdrojowa Street in Duszniki-Zdrój 2 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 11:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Subject is too obstructed --Aciarium 17:15, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Юрий Д.К. 18:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 01:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Red-billed_chough_(Pyrrhocorax_pyrrhocorax),_Algarve.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Red-billed chough (Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax) --Hobbyfotowiki 07:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The bird is too dark and lacks details, and this large blurry rock doesn't decorate the image. --Екатерина Борисова 03:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Юрий Д.К. 18:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Uzbek_girl_in_traditional_clothing.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination On this photograph you can see an Uzbek girl wearing traditional festive costume. She is covered with a mantle with handmade embroidery. Such mantles are commonly worn by brides on their wedding day. Under the mantle she wears a robe - Uzbek: chopon - made out of light half-silk half-cotton fabric - Uzbek: adras. On her head she wears a festive skullcap - Uzbek: do'ppi.This media was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Folklore 2025 international photographic contest. By User:Elamanovaelvina --Suyash.dwivedi 16:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Great quality. --DimiTalen 16:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's shame there is posterization on top (background). --Sebring12Hrs 18:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Really nice photo. It's above the threshold for QI to me, but agree with Sebring12Hrs that it could be improved with some light/color balance adjustments. --E bailey 18:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
    Yes this photo has FP potential IMO ! --Sebring12Hrs 21:46, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. Other QI candidates got declined for weaker levels of posterization/color banding already, whereas in this case it is strongly noticable. --Aciarium 09:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 10:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Caracol_marino_(Cypraea_tigris),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-23,_DD_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tiger cowrie (Cypraea tigris), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 04:33, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry. Out of focus. --Pdanese 11:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment It does look blurry, but it isn't. It is a visual effect of the pattern of the shell. Look at the sand on the shell, it is sharp. The shell has --Poco a poco 19:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Poco. This is how tiger cowries appear naturally. – Julian Lupyan 15:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   – Julian Lupyan 15:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Krakow_Rajska_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kraków, Municipal Library "Rajska" --Gower 21:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Very blurry on the right side and in bottom part of the image, and the central building is obscured by wires and road signs. --Екатерина Борисова 01:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment obscuring everything by wires and road signs it's our Polish specialty ;) --Gower 20:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I hope that blurry images are not Polish speciality :) You've set the photo back to Nomination instead of send it to CR section, so I do it for you. --Екатерина Борисова 02:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I dont mind the wires but the right part of the images is clearly blurred and also very dark shadows. Sorry, but not a QI imo.--ArildV 10:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Krakow_pomnik_Mickiewicza_z_tylu_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kraków, Adam Mickiewicz monument, back side --Gower 21:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, poor composition IMO: the statue should not have been allowed to obscure the church. Furthermore, it is not a suitable background, and a more appropriate one would have been easy to find. --Lmbuga 01:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Lmbuga: I specially took a photo from the back to show other details, we have dozens of photos from the front of this monument; It's not my fault that a church has been there since the Middle Ages --Gower 20:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It makes sense to have a photo of the statue from this angle as well, and the church can’t really be avoided. Given this, the composition isn’t bad. Otherwise ok quality.--ArildV 10:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support As per ArildV. --Scotch Mist 11:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is disputable, but the image is just not sharp. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. --August (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts_-_La_Nativité_et_l'Adoration_des_Bergers.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dijon (Côte-d'Or, France) - Museum of Fine Arts - Nativity and Adoration of the Shepherds, by the master of Flémaille (probably someone from Robert Campin's workshop) --Benjism89 06:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 10:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterization at the bottom right. We can see a "color quantization". --Sebring12Hrs 07:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Am confused - if minor "color quantization" on the picture frame is not acceptable here, why was major "color quantization" apparently acceptable on the original image: File:Nikolauskapelle_between_the_vineyards,_Klingenmünster,_2025.jpg? Please advise to improve my understanding for future reference - thank you! --Scotch Mist 11:04, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
    Hello ! See Color quantization or posterization (very similar). --Sebring12Hrs 21:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Thank you for your response - I believe I understand what the different terms mean but I don't understand why a 'minor' such event is not acceptable in one instance (this file) but a 'major' such event (with "similar" outcome) is apparently acceptable in another instance (the file referenced with the "green blob")? Am I missing something in objectively comparing the two images presented?? --Scotch Mist 22:46, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. There also seems to be color noise. – Julian Lupyan 23:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   – Julian Lupyan (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

File:20240815_View_cupola_Berlin_Cathedral_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Views from the cupola of the Berlin Cathedral --FlocciNivis 17:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The image has an unnatural brownish tint. Fixable? --Augustgeyler 20:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I am so sorry, I thought I had only commented on this nomination. Excuse me please if I was messing it up be accidentally bringing it here. --Augustgeyler 07:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment brownish tint is very common at FlocciNivis works, I noticed it earlier and asked and she said she usually does it on purpose. This also seems unfavorable to me when it comes to Commons. It may look nice, but on Commons the colors should be as natural as possible. --Gower 12:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose OK. If that is the case I have to oppose. It is not covered by the guidelines to change collours intentionally to give an unrealistic impression. --August (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The left tower (very left) is leaning. --Sebring12Hrs 20:12, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Église_Saint-Georges_de_Fressain.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Église Saint-Georges de Fressain --JackyM59 15:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, lack of detail --Lmbuga 16:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit borderline indeed, but ok to me. Let's discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 22:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Good but just too low on detail. Per Lmbuga. --August (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Borderline case Юрий Д.К. 07:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Supermoon,_September_28,_2015_(UTC),_Osaka,_Japan.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Supermoon, September 28, 2015 (UTC), Osaka, Japan. --Laitche 10:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 10:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Junior Jumper 11:27, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The Moon is a bit too blurred IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 11:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Yes, that’s true. Focus stacking would be the optimal solution, but I wasn’t considering it at the time this photo was taken. --Laitche 12:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info New version uploaded. --Laitche 18:23, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The last version has more contrast than the previous one, and we can see textures added on the surface, but I don't think it's QI, because those textures seems to be compression artifacts. --Sebring12Hrs 19:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: This is a normal contrast adjustment. While it may appear textured, it does not seem to be caused by compression artifacts. --Laitche 20:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Denoised. --Laitche 18:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs --Milseburg (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_026_St_Mary_Basilica.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St Mary’s Basilica Towers & Church Dome, Krakow --Scotch Mist 07:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good, but it would be advisable to correct the perspective to be QI. The dark tones are too dark, in my opinion. --Lmbuga 08:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO image not conducive to PC so QI should be determined on other factors - other opinions? --Scotch Mist 09:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • You come storming in --Lmbuga 10:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, no perspective correction is needed here, as this is a clear and intentional upward-looking viewpoint. However, the dark tones are too dark at the moment — something that could easily be corrected. --Augustgeyler 18:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. --Sebring12Hrs 11:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Augustgeyler: Thank you for your constructive comment - have lightened dark tones! --Scotch Mist 08:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. --August (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_029_St_Mary_Basilica_-_Tops_of_Towers.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St Mary’s Basilica Tops of Towers --Scotch Mist 07:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Iit would be advisable to correct the perspective to be QI. The dark tones are too dark, in my opinion. --Lmbuga 08:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO image not conducive to PC so QI should be determined on other factors - other opinions? --Scotch Mist 09:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • WOW!! --Lmbuga 10:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. --Sebring12Hrs 11:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment No perspective correction is needed here, as this is a clear and intentional upward-looking viewpoint. However, the dark tones are too dark at the moment — something that could easily be corrected. --Augustgeyler 18:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
     Comment May be you are right about PC, but towers looks falling and the crop is really bad IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 15:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Augustgeyler: Thank you for your constructive comment - have lightened dark tones! --Scotch Mist 08:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Tones did improve. But one last thing: Sebring12Hrs is right about rotation. I think it needs to be rotated slightly clockwise. --August (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga. Crop is also too tight in my opinion, and the colors seem washed out. – Julian Lupyan 15:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   – Julian Lupyan (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_025_St_Mary_Basilica_-_South_Tower.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination North Tower of St Mary’s Basilica, Krakow --Scotch Mist 10:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 09:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The tower lost it's natural shape due to strong perspective correction (see the real shape here). This was a bottom-up view, but now it's pretending to be a frontal view. But for what reason? --Екатерина Борисова 02:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова --Lmbuga 06:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina. --Augustgeyler 07:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Екатерина Борисова: Good question! If you look at two other images (above '026' and '029') you will note that these were opposed on the basis that PC was required when I personally thought these images were not conducive to PC for the very reason you have highlighted here. The pivotal issue is that there appears to be no logical consistency in Reviews or Discussions with people declining support in one instance but not supporting in the other. Worse still is when support is declined in both scenarios by the same users suggesting a "no-win" situation when perhaps the photographer is best placed to assess whether PC should be applied or not in the complexity of perspective rigour versus what is natural to the eye. --Scotch Mist 08:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please read again discussions above, they say that the issue is not in a clear and intentional upward-looking viewpoint, and I personally agree with it. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Екатерина Борисова: Thank you for your input - have reversed PC (my usual default is not to PC unless there is an obvious requirement to do so but given comments on other images uploaded evidently some users think differently!) --Scotch Mist 10:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Oh, it's much better now, thank you! I'm ready to remove my opposing vote, but after you do a little more horizontal alignment (see comment below). -- Екатерина Борисова 04:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree with Екатерина Борисова that the first version is too distorted. But it seems the tower is leaning to the left a bit. Horizontal PC could be appplied. --Sebring12Hrs 15:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Sebring12Hrs: Have further adjusted PC - any additional PC might introduce more evident distortion! --Scotch Mist 08:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Library_of_Palácio_das_Galveias_seen_from_a_window_with_a_reflected_view_of_the_CGD_headquarters_and_a_sitting_man,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Library of Palácio das Galveias seen from a window with a reflected view of the CGD headquarters and a sitting man, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 09:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose This is an interesting picture and I like the composition, but I think it's no QI due to the distortions looking through the window --FlocciNivis 18:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can see plenty of reflections but no distortions, could you leave a note? --Julesvernex2 21:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Well captured reflections. --Augustgeyler 08:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts_-_La_Dame_à_sa_toilette.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination La Dame à sa toilette --Benjism89 11:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Strong color noise. Feel free to go to CR. --Sebring12Hrs 12:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Low noise on the painting, noise is mainly on the frame and background. I'd like other opinions --Benjism89 10:10, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry @Benjism89, but most or all of your high-ISO pictures are poorly denoised, with several completely out-of-color pixels. You might want to verify your Darktable settings, or switch to another raw converter. There's a lot of potential in these pictures but they need better NR. --Plozessor 05:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs --Lmbuga 06:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info On @Plozessor: 's advice, I tried today another denoising software on this picture and uploaded it as a new version. Result is probably better, although maybe a little less natural. --Benjism89 18:00, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Still noisy at the bottom, but this second version is far away better ! It's amazing, I didn't believe it. --Sebring12Hrs 20:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, IMO it's much better. --Plozessor 09:37, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 17:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Jan Nowak-Jeziorański square, 2025, Krakow, Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plac Jana Nowaka-Jeziorańskiego, 2025, Kraków, Polska --Igor123121 07:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 12:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is the level of vignetting acceptable here? Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Vignetting is notable. Additionally the level of detail is quite low. On the other hand the image has good light and sharpness. --August (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Vignetting--Lmbuga 03:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: @Lmbuga: ✓ Done --Igor123121 08:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Юрий Д.К. 19:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 17:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Aerial view of Kraków Główny station and Bosacka Street buildings, Poland, December 2025.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 16:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_ul._Zielona_10_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 10 Zielona Street in Duszniki-Zdrój 3 --Jacek Halicki 00:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The car is crooked due to PC of the image --Екатерина Борисова 01:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 02:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Let's discuss then. --Екатерина Борисова 02:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 11:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Юрий Д.К. 15:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina. --Augustgeyler 12:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Is this car really distorted? Might as well decline 95% of QC photos with this argument. --Sebring12Hrs 15:52, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 16:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Lycopus_europaeus_Bytom.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common gypsywort (Lycopus europaeus) on a wooden post, Bytom --Gower 16:35, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 19:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful image, but too blurry in full size. --Екатерина Борисова 02:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful composition compensates borderline sharpness, in total slightly over the bar for me. --Plozessor 03:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Very good compo, but not very sharp (would be a FP for me). Юрий Д.К. 19:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose. Wonderful composition, but unfortunately clearly not sharp enough. --August (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It lacks sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 02:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 02:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Indian_boar_in_Kaziranga_National_Park_March_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Indian boar (Sus scrofa cristatus) in Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hobbyfotowiki 11:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Temporary  Oppose Good, but please improve the description and CATs with the action (walking) and male/female (if known) --Tagooty 13:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It lacks sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 19:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 15:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts_-_Statue_de_Sainte_Véronique.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dijon (Côte-d'Or, France) - Museum of Fine Arts - 14th-century statue of saint Veronica --Benjism89 07:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Color noise at the bootom, on the grey area. --Sebring12Hrs 12:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The support has a dark color, so noise is stronger than on the subject. But it's background ... and in my opinion, a small amount of noise, hardly visible at 4 MPx, should be accepted in the background, just as we accept that background can be blurred or even burnt. Anyway, I made a new version with stronger noise reduction on the support --Benjism89 14:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Noise and NR artifacts at the bottom and background, but overall acceptable. --Plozessor 04:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chromatic noise throughout the image. Artifacts too --Lmbuga 06:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Plozessor --Scotch Mist 15:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga – Julian Lupyan 23:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info New version uploaded using a different Noise reduction software. --Benjism89 18:09, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me. --Rjcastillo 03:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --August (talk) 14:01, 26 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)
     Oppose Oups yes, you are right, there is a dust spot. --Sebring12Hrs 12:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
     Support. --Sebring12Hrs 17:33, 21 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)
  •  Support Ok now Jakubhal 05:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Temporary  Oppose due dust spot (per Jakubhal). --Plozessor 08:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Plozessor 11:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I think we forget that, according to the guidelines, we can vote in favour of images of only more than two megapixels --Lmbuga 13:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Clearly underexposed.--ArildV 12:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per ArildV --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The exposure is acceptable in my opinion – Julian Lupyan 15:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with others on poor exposure. Also, not sharp - edges on buildings are slightly blurred. --E bailey 18:46, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   – Julian Lupyan (talk) 15:31, 24 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)
  • Review
  •  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)
  •  Support As per Plozessor --Scotch Mist 15:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Sebring12Hrs and Lmbuga. --E bailey 18:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 12:50, 27 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)
  • Review
  •  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 I think we forget that, according to the guidelines, we can vote in favour of images of only more than two megapixels. --Lmbuga 12:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question What do you mean by that? There was no argument about resolution so far. --Augustgeyler 17:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: I don't want a fight. If you want a fight, fight someone else. I'm not going to listen to you: I'm not always going to say what you want to hear.--Lmbuga 02:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • The next time you come looking for me with this intention, I will ask you to let me live in peace. --Lmbuga 03:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • OMG. I was just asking a simple question… --Augustgeyler 07:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Let's ease the tension. There's no need for aggression. --Pangalau 09:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Of course not. So I would just like to know what the user means with his two megapixel-argument. --Augustgeyler 12:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment cutted person on the right. I suggest retouch/crop Юрий Д.К. 19:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Purple fringing on the right. I agree with Lmbuga, the level of detail is good enough in my opinion. Will support once defringed. – Julian Lupyan 15:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 12:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 19 Dec → Sat 27 Dec
  • Sat 20 Dec → Sun 28 Dec
  • Sun 21 Dec → Mon 29 Dec
  • Mon 22 Dec → Tue 30 Dec
  • Tue 23 Dec → Wed 31 Dec
  • Wed 24 Dec → Thu 01 Jan
  • Thu 25 Dec → Fri 02 Jan
  • Fri 26 Dec → Sat 03 Jan
  • Sat 27 Dec → Sun 04 Jan