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]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. 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 June 2026.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 2026.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 25 2026 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 05:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

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

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

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

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


June 25, 2026

[edit]

June 24, 2026

[edit]

June 23, 2026

[edit]

June 22, 2026

[edit]

June 21, 2026

[edit]

June 20, 2026

[edit]

June 19, 2026

[edit]

June 18, 2026

[edit]

June 17, 2026

[edit]

June 16, 2026

[edit]

June 15, 2026

[edit]

June 14, 2026

[edit]

June 12, 2026

[edit]

June 10, 2026

[edit]

June 8, 2026

[edit]

June 6, 2026

[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 and author'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:High_Alps_Landscape_Surkhan_State_Nature_Reserve.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An expansive high-altitude alpine landscape photograph of the Surkhan State Nature Reserve, focusing on the vast, pristine snowfields covering the mountainsides. Sunlight filtering through a high cloud ceiling illuminates the deep texture of the snow and rock.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2026. --Panpanchik 06:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. I love it --Lmbuga 07:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose (temporary) Sorry, but there are two dust spots. I added a note. --Harlock81 12:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Giant's_Causeway_at_dusk_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Giant’s Causeway --Thomas Fuhrmann Jakobsthal 05:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Beautiful picture. Good quality, could you please fix the slight tilt of the horizon ? --Benjism89 05:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC) ✓ Done I fixed the slight tilt of the horizon --Thomas Fuhrmann Jakobsthal 06:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)  Oppose The ghosts are spoiling it. --Milseburg 16:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
     Support I disagree. Ghosts are hard to avoid in such a long exposure picture, and the two most visible ones actually add something interesting to the composition IMO --Benjism89 17:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
     Support Interesting photo --Юрий Д.К. 17:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Hällene_June_2026_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination House in Hälle (Kyrkesund), Tjörn. --ArildV 05:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 05:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose WB is off. --Plozessor 05:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Abduvohid_Nematov_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Uzbek footballer Abduvohid Nematov -- Umarxon III 09:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Vignetting --Lmbuga 00:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Akmal_Mozgovoy_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Uzbek footballer Akmal Mozgovoy -- Umarxon III 09:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Vignetting --Lmbuga 00:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Южно-Приморский_парк,_фонтан_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fountain of Yuzhno-Primorsky Park, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 00:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose The background looks unsettling; it is neither fully blurred nor sharp, resulting in a poor depth of field. --Igor123121 22:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Южно-Приморский_парк,_фонтан_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fountain of Yuzhno-Primorsky Park, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Acroterion 01:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose There is a lot of noise; even still elements lack the quality expected for IQ. --Igor123121 22:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Южно-Приморский_парк,_фонтан_04.jpg

[edit]

File:Tamka_street,_2026,_Warsaw,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tamka street, 2026, Warsaw, Poland --Igor123121 08:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    You need to do something about the top crop --Poco a poco 08:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 09:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose per Poco a Poco --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Un_pecheur_du_port_de_la_Chebba.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Un pecheur du port de la ChebbaMoi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été importée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Earth 2026. --Skander zarrad 21:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 23:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me blurred nets in the foreground are disturbing --Jakubhal 04:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't understand this nomination and how it can be supported. Alvesgaspar 13:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Giant's_Causeway_at_dusk_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Giant’s Causeway --Thomas Fuhrmann Jakobsthal 09:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Beautiful light and composition. But the "ghosts" of the other tourists are a problem. --Zinnmann 10:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --روتانا 13:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Zinnmann --Jakubhal 04:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. Ghosts are long exposure artefacts Юрий Д.К. 09:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It would indeed be an excellent shot ... without the ghosts. Alvesgaspar 13:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Zinnmann --Milseburg 16:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 16:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Halle,_Pauluskirche,_Orgel_(Juni_2026)_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Organ in the Pauluskirche in Halle (Saale) --Romzig 05:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 05:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong chromatic aberrations from the glass window, whose details are lost. To be discussed, sorry. --Harlock81 10:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The organ is ok, but the blown background is terrible. Alvesgaspar 13:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

File:"Żyletkowce"_office_buildings_in_Krakow,....._11_Kazimierza_Kordylewskiego_street,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination "Żyletkowce" office buildings in Krakow, 11 Kazimierza Kordylewskiego street, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 04:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 09:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The identical image (with slightly different name) is already a QI. Could you please just stop upload duplicate images and especially nominate them? --Екатерина Борисова 02:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Already QI (with the other name). Choose one, and ask for the deletion of the other one as copy. --Harlock81 08:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Żyletkowce"_office_buildings_in_Krakow.,_11_Kazimierza_Kordylewskiego_street,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Żyletkowce" office buildings in Krakow, 11 Kazimierza Kordylewskiego street, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 04:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. -- 26D 04:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Almost identical image is already a QI. --Екатерина Борисова 02:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Here, correction of the vertical alignment has been executed better with respect to the other photo. So, I would suggest to promote this and maybe review the status of the other one. --Harlock81 08:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I know that there is a way to delist images in FP project, but I have never seen this procedure here. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: I don't understand your point. There is no rule anywhere banning the nomination of photos taken from the exact same perspective (you even wrote yourself not long ago that you wouldn't oppose it until official rules are created). --Igor123121 21:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment If there is no rule that prohibits doing something, it does not mean that you should do it. For example, cheating is not prohibited when playing cards, but it is unfair. I think what you're doing is unfair, and besides, it discredits the idea of a QI project where people come to show their best photos, rather than collect statuses at all costs. Besides, I think it's unfair that every time I catch you doing this, you immediately go and oppose my photos. You never oppose anyone else's photos. In other words, you can only respond to criticism by harassing your opponent. It's funny in its own way, but still unpleasant. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 08:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Darbat_Jaafar_Waterfall_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Darbat Jaafar Waterfall--روتانا 15:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 23:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated and lack of detail. --Zinnmann 17:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    What specific details are missing? the colors are acceptable compared to the reality of the region in Oman, which possesses these colors on the ground. --روتانا 19:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree, image is too soft and oversaturated. Alvesgaspar 13:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Darbat_Jaafar_Waterfall_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Darbat Jaafar Waterfall--روتانا 15:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 23:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated and lack of detail. --Zinnmann 17:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    What specific details are missing? the colors are acceptable compared to the reality of the region in Oman, which possesses these colors on the ground. --روتانا 19:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image too soft. Alvesgaspar 13:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Fossilized_remains_in_rock_near_Lake_Badak.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fossilized remains in rock near Lake Badak.--26D 11:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 11:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree. --روتانا 12:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately the main object is blurry. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Impflingen_Auf_der_Heide_004_2026_05_20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Natural monument Linden Avenue (Tilia species) in Impflingen
    --F. Riedelio 08:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Verticals should be corrected. --Ermell 09:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --روتانا 12:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please wait until the image has been corrected. Just voting for it is a little disrespectful. --Ermell 19:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
    Fixed Improved. Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 14:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Pizzo_-_Chiesa_di_San_Giorgio_-_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pizzo (Calabria, Italy) - St George church - Choir --Benjism89 05:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romainbehar 06:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but most parts of the dragon are overexposed by sunlight. --Zinnmann 16:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment They are exposed higher than the rest of the picture, not burnt (as this is an HDR, I have details in them). Just uploaded a new version where this part of the image is a little less exposed --Benjism89 05:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, not the best time of the day. Alvesgaspar 13:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good! Юрий Д.К. 14:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Eurasian_Wryneck_in_Tal_Chhapar_Sanctuary_November_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eurasian Wryneck (Jynx torquilla) in Tal Chhapar Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 15:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 21:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree. --روتانا 12:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bird is blurred. Alvesgaspar 13:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Ocean_Office_Park._2_Pana_Tadeusza_street,_Podgórze,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ocean Office Park, 2 Pana Tadeusza street, Podgórze, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plasmium 17:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (temporarily) Purple tint should be reduced. Also looks like tilted (see the piece of chimney on the right side). --Екатерина Борисова 02:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Вид_с_горнолыжного_комплекса_"Амирсой"_19.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the Ugam-Chatkal State Biosphere Reserve, Tashkent Region, Uzbekistan. --Iplossusvulpes19 00:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 00:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I disagree. The composition is undecided whether it's about the people in the forground or the mountains in the background. --Zinnmann 21:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Precisely! Should be the mountains because most people are out of focus... -- Alvesgaspar 13:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment The opposing votes are too late. The image is QI already. The bot just failed to remove it from the candidate list, probably because of an edit conflict. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • This is a BIG LOL 🤣! Photo is not bad. Юрий Д.К. 15:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:White_feathers_(Dandelion).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination White feathers--روتانا 20:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Category of plant is needed. --Екатерина Борисова 03:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
    I have added the category --روتانا 15:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you, but I'm not sure if it's a Taraxacum. --Екатерина Борисова 03:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
     Comment No, it is not Taraxacum. It seems more probably Senecio. --Harlock81 10:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    Senecio flowers? --روتانا 19:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
    That is the fruit, but the species should be identified. If the picture has been taken in Kuwait, it could be Senecio glaucus (native) or Senecio vulgaris (introduced). To me, it seems S. vulgaris. However, it is not so simple to evaluate it just from a picture. If you have other pictures taken that day, you may use them to better identify the species.
    Also, the description of the image is poetic, but not descriptive enough of what is shown. --Harlock81 08:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Ocean_Office_Park,_2_Pana_Tadeusza_street,_Podgórze,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ocean Office Park, 2 Pana Tadeusza street, Podgórze, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 08:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 09:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (temporarily) Purple tint should be reduced. --Екатерина Борисова 03:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This must be declined because it is QI already. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Барбарис_Тунберга_в_Южно-Приморском_парке_01.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Bokeh_002_2023_09_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Meerkat (Suricata suricatta) against a blurred background at the Worms Zoo
    --F. Riedelio 14:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Cute creature, but blurry, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
    IMHO: the object is sharp enough for QI --F. Riedelio 14:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Overall, it's sharp enough. --Zinnmann 19:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not all, look at the head! -- Alvesgaspar 20:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kościół_św._Jrzego_w_Krajanowie_(10).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Amazing_view_of_football_coat_in_the_mountain_range_in_oman.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Amazing view of football coat in the mountain range in oman--روتانا 16:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plasmium 17:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too strong artefacts in the sky. --Milseburg 18:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterized sky Jakubhal 04:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

File:MS_Härön_June_2026_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The ferry M/S Härön --ArildV 06:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poconaco 06:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As more than one ship can have the same name, ships are linked to a universal numbering system such as IMO or MMSI. The ferry, Härön, has an assigned MMSI # 265741690. The Category:Härön (ship, 2015) should be placed as a sub-category under MMSI 265741690. This is fixable. --GRDN711 03:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Suggest cropping off the distracting seagull at the top. --GRDN711 03:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
    ✓ Done x 2--ArildV 10:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Manly_Beacon_and_the_badlands_from_Zabriskie_Point,_panorama,_Death_Valley_National_Park,_California.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panorama of Manly Beacon, the eroded badlands and the distant salt flats seen from Zabriskie Point. --Espandero 21:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 00:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Little stitching error to fix, see note. --Milseburg 13:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • :  Oppose Per now. Easy to fix but not done yet. --Milseburg 18:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
    Milseburg: I've uploaded a new version. It was a bit of a pickle because the original file was bigger than 100 MB. Thanks, Espandero 20:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks.  Support now. Good quality, high resolution and interesting motif. --Milseburg 17:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 17:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Świerki_5_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 4 Świerki 2 by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 09:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 16:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The church on the background is seriously distorted, but might be cropped. --Lvova 15:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 04:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 08:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Archbishop's_House_in_Adelaide,_June_0226_(DSCF7622).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Archbishop's House in Adelaide, June 0226. --Pangalau 08:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 09:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Isn't it too dark for the daytime shot (according to EXIF data)? Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 03:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
 Comment It's winter there right now, and the sun is already low? --Smial 12:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The streetlamp is a bit distracting, but that’s just a minor compositional flaw; otherwise, the quality is good. --Smial 12:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good evening shot Юрий Д.К. 11:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Majestic_Mt._Api_Himal_in_Api_Nampa_Conservation_Area,_Sudurpaschim.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mt. Api Himal (7,132 m), the highest mountain in Sudurpaschim Province, stands prominently within the Api Nampa Conservation Area of western Nepal. By User:Sunuwargr --Nirmal Dulal 14:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 20:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No categories. --Екатерина Борисова 02:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support ✓ Done Юрий Д.К. 19:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Włodowice_77_(1).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 06:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Вид_с_горнолыжного_комплекса_"Амирсой"_42.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the Ugam-Chatkal State Biosphere Reserve, Tashkent Region, Uzbekistan. --Iplossusvulpes19 22:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 08:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots in the sky. And I have some doubts about WB. --Екатерина Борисова 03:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
The dust spots have been removed, and the white balance has been fixed as much as possible. Thanks for the review! Iplossusvulpes19 00:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Dust spots are gone, thanks, but I still have my doubts about WB. The "blue" version looked even better IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 06:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Вид_с_горнолыжного_комплекса_"Амирсой"_41.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the Ugam-Chatkal State Biosphere Reserve, Tashkent Region, Uzbekistan. --Iplossusvulpes19 22:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 08:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots in the sky. And I have some doubts about WB. --Екатерина Борисова 03:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
The dust spots have been removed, and the white balance has been fixed as much as possible. Thanks for the review! Iplossusvulpes19 00:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Dust spots are gone, thanks, but I still have my doubts about WB. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 06:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Włodowice_50_(2).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 07:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Włodowice_36.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 07:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Włodowice_50_(3).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 07:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Włodowice_31_(1).jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment I don't understand why do you support an image with such an obvious and fixable issue, but I still wait for Jacek to come and fix it. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 07:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Барбарис_Тунберга_в_Южно-Приморском_парке_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Berberis thunbergii in Yuzhno-Primorsky Park, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose very chaotic, tilted, as if made in motion --Igor123121 12:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
    Branches of a shrub can't be "tilted" and they are "chaotic" by its nature. I'd like to hear more reasonable opinions. --Екатерина Борисова 02:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree that framing is not the best, as with very many images being presented here. But the focus and sharpness is at the central flowers of the composition, as they should. -- Alvesgaspar 18:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The central flowers are well taken. --Harlock81 07:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition seems random, this image is very tilted (look at the pole behind) and nothing is really sharp (whereas high aperture pictures tend to be sharper on the subject). Sorry --Benjism89 07:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment If I crop the pole, you wouldn't even think to say that the picture is tilted because the people in the background are standing straight. Sometimes there are, you know, leaning poles and leaning trees near the ponds in parks. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Benji 07:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Tamka street, 2026, Warsaw, Poland, 2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wybrzeże Gdańskie street, 2026, Warsaw, Poland --Igor123121 04:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Left part is blurry, also WB seems tio be not good here (purple tint). --Екатерина Борисова 03:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kościół_św._Jrzego_w_Krajanowie_(09).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint George church in Krajanów 2 by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 09:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Pdanese 11:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 11:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose (temporarily) Removal of CAs between trees and sky was not completed and also left artifacts. Fixable I suppose. --Екатерина Борисова 04:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 11:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand why do you support an image with such an obvious and fixable issue, but I still wait for Jacek to come and fix it. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kościół_św._Jrzego_w_Krajanowie_(11).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint George church in Krajanów 4 by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 09:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 12:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Still support if it will be fixed. Lvova 19:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (temporarily) Removal of CAs between trees and sky was not completed and also left artifacts. Fixable I suppose. --Екатерина Борисова 04:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 11:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand why do you support an image with such an obvious and fixable issue, but I still wait for Jacek to come and fix it. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Lvova 19:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Kapucyńska_Street...,_Warsaw_,2026.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 07:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Miodowa street,.... 2026, Warsaw, Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Senatorska street, 2026, Warsaw, Poland --Igor123121 08:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Ok, but I don't understand the title --Poco a poco 08:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Almost the same image is already a QI. --Екатерина Борисова 01:57, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Екатерина Борисова: This isn't the same photo, just look at the pedestrians' legs. The rules don't forbid nominating multiple identical photos. --Igor123121 08:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    I didn't say that these photos are identical, but they are almost identical, and the difference is very insignificant. There is no direct prohibition in the rules against nominating almost identical photos, but what is the point of doing so? Is it just about chasing the number of QI statuses? Also there is no benefit for Commons in doing so. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 07:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Durbuy_-_Rue_Jean_de_Bohême.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Durbuy - Rue Jean de Bohême.--JackyM59 06:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like this picture, but I miss the sky here. Other opinions? --Екатерина Борисова 02:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree that the brightness of the sky is almost too much, but it is still acceptable for me. The scene is nice, and the advertisements on the shop front window are even readable. --Harlock81 10:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose These are well-known difficult conditions for a photographer. Two alternatives: to wait for better ones, and to use the trick of underexposing the photograph in order to have better detail in the sky. That will be corrected in the lab. -- Alvesgaspar 21:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 10:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Marshal_Józef_Piłsudski_Square......._2026,_Warsaw,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Marshal Józef Piłsudski Square. 2026, Warsaw, Poland --Igor123121 11:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plasmium 23:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed, bad WB (unnatural purple sky). --Екатерина Борисова 03:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 18:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Marshal_Józef_Piłsudski_Square........_2026,_Warsaw,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Marshal Józef Piłsudski Square. 2026, Warsaw, Poland --Igor123121 11:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 21:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed, bad WB (unnatural purple sky). --Екатерина Борисова 03:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment The WB should indeed be fixed. This camera can take 6000 x 4000 images, why is this image only half this resolution ? --Benjism89 07:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 18:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 17 Jun → Thu 25 Jun
  • Thu 18 Jun → Fri 26 Jun
  • Fri 19 Jun → Sat 27 Jun
  • Sat 20 Jun → Sun 28 Jun
  • Sun 21 Jun → Mon 29 Jun
  • Mon 22 Jun → Tue 30 Jun
  • Tue 23 Jun → Wed 01 Jul
  • Wed 24 Jun → Thu 02 Jul
  • Thu 25 Jun → Fri 03 Jul