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 20 2026 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 04:01, 20 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 19, 2026

[edit]

June 18, 2026

[edit]

June 17, 2026

[edit]

June 16, 2026

[edit]

June 15, 2026

[edit]

June 14, 2026

[edit]

June 13, 2026

[edit]

June 12, 2026

[edit]

June 11, 2026

[edit]

June 10, 2026

[edit]

June 9, 2026

[edit]

June 8, 2026

[edit]

June 6, 2026

[edit]

June 5, 2026

[edit]

June 4, 2026

[edit]

May 31, 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:Hutt_Street_in_Adelaide,_June_2026_(DSCF7697).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hutt Street in Adelaide, June 2026. --Pangalau 08:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 09:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed background, multiple CA's among the branches (especially thick on the right side). --Екатерина Борисова 02:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Also here, I agree with Екатерина Борисова, sorry. --Harlock81 07:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 07:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Adelaide_College_for_the_Arts_in_June_2026_(DSCF7604).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Adelaide College for the Arts in June 2026. --Pangalau 08:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 09:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Oversaturated sky and burnt clouds. --Zinnmann 12:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Zinnmann, sorry. --Harlock81 07:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 07:50, 19 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:Pizzo_-_Spiaggia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pizzo (Calabria, Italy) - The small downtown beach, in low season --Benjism89 04:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Looks unsharp sorry --Poco a poco 06:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    I added a little more sharpening --Benjism89 16:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 07:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Włodowice_31_(1).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 07:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Pizzo_-_Vista_della_città_vecchia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pizzo (Calabria, Italy) - View of the old town from the marina --Benjism89 05:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unsharp --Poco a poco 13:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
    I added a little more sharpening --Benjism89 16:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 07:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2026_-_Tadorna_ferruginea,_pond_in_the_Altufyevsky_district.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2026 - Tadorna ferruginea, pond in the Altufyevsky district --Юрий Д.К. 23:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry:  Level of detail too low --F. Riedelio 15:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    Other opinions? --Юрий Д.К. 21:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 07:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:SCAT,_Almaty_(LRM_20240405_094300).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Boeing 737-800 by SCAT at Almaty Airport --MB-one 15:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 16:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. If the subject is the plane, you should zoom in or crop closer to better fill the frame with the plane. In future, try to avoid background distractions like the nose of this plane touching the tail of the plane in the background. Image is incorrectly categorized under registration number Category:UP-B3731 (aircraft). Please create and move image to Category:UP-B3736 (aircraft) under parent Category:Current Boeing 737-8 MAX of SCAT. --GRDN711 22:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree -- Alvesgaspar 18:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Фонтан_на_Аллее_Чернобыльцев,_СПб_05.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Igor123121 17:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Фонтан_на_Аллее_Чернобыльцев,_СПб_02.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Igor123121 17:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Первоцвет_Зибольда_в_СПб_02.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Igor123121 17:51, 18 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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 07:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Wybrzeże_Gdańskie_street,_2026,_Warsaw,_Poland.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:Okólnik_street,_2026,_Warsaw,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Okólnik street, 2026, Warsaw, Poland --Igor123121 04:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Romzig 06:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose (temporarily) I think these blurry pieces of branches in upper part of image are disturbing. Other opinions? --Екатерина Борисова 03:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree. Alvesgaspar 18:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --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)
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)
     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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Pargo_emperador_rojo_(Lutjanus_sebae),_Mahé,_Seychelles,_2025-09-10,_DD_180.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Red emperor (Lutjanus sebae), Mahé, Seychelles --Poco a poco 08:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plasmium 08:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    STOP. Please categorize properly. Mahé is a big island. Where exactly taken? Perhaps taken at the Sainte Anne Marine National Park, which is not exactly Mahé? --A.Savin 10:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kościół_św._Jrzego_w_Krajanowie_(07).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint George church in Krajanów 5 --Jacek Halicki 06:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:37, 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 04:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Why proprosing an almost identical image to the one above? -- Alvesgaspar 18:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Elder_Park,_Adelaide_In_June_2026_(DSCF7420).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Elder Park, Adelaide In June 2026. --Pangalau 08:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 16:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I have to disagree. Hard to say what's the subject. Quite mushy. --Zinnmann 20:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree, composition is not the best. Why such an impsoing foreground? -- Alvesgaspar 18:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment To me the subject was clearly the park, which is made up of quite a bit of grass, so I was seeing that as the subject not the foreground. Thanks. Mike Peel 21:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Poland_2025_731_Zbydniów_-_Horodyński_School_(Korczak_COA).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Korczak Coat of Arms of Horodyński Family --Scotch Mist 05:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Upper part of image is blurry, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Екатерина Борисова: Thanks for your review - have uploaded sharper image for further consideration. --Scotch Mist 11:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks, but I still think that it's not sharp enough. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, there is little excuse for such a flat and still subject not being razor sharp.. -- Alvesgaspar 18:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Alvesgaspar: Thanks for your review but with all due respect your comment is rather presumptuous given you have no knowledge of the conditions under which the photo was taken - the plaque was mounted high on a wall in a room with far from ideal lighting so although I do not dispute your decision I would suggest you refrain from making such gratuitous statements. --SM:!) (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:13, 18 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:Senatorska_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:Poland_2025_818_Czchów_-_Nativity_Church.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nativity Church Finials --Scotch Mist 06:44, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry but overprocessed, white borders around the branches --Jacek Halicki 06:57, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Not visible at A4 scale - other opinions? --Scotch Mist 07:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good for me --GoldenArtists 15:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough also for me. --Harlock81 10:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose. Quality is acceptable IMO, but I don't understand the composition. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Екатерина Борисова: Besides exhibiting three different finials with crosses, church finials point to the sky and to God - the sky is also relevant in this composition with the transition from the turbulent clouds below to the more peaceful sky above!
     Comment All church finials point to the sky and to God, this is their usual purpose. I'm not convinced by your arguments, but I won't argue further.-- Екатерина Борисова 04:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I do like the composition, and the sharpening artefacts are borderline. -- Alvesgaspar 21:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 07:11, 19 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 18:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

File:الرقود_السبعة.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination الرقود السبعة شنني تطاوين --Smailtn 08:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Please stop nominate images without categories --ArildV 13:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    thank you ArildV categories added 14:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC))
     Support Thank you. Good quality. --ArildV 18:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry on both sides. --Екатерина Борисова 02:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp. -- Alvesgaspar 22:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Sufficient sharpness and quality --Zinnmann 18:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Zinnmann (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Common_tern_(Sterna_hirundo)_with_common_roach_(Rutilus_rutilus)_Haff_Reimech.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common tern (Sterna hirundo) --Charlesjsharp 14:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pangalau 00:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Category "Charadriiformes of Luxembourg" not properly fixed by the nominator. As usual. --A.Savin 08:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Comment ✓ Done by me. Please, check. --Harlock81 10:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- 26D 08:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Common_terns_(Sterna_hirundo)_fighting_Haff_Reimech.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common tern (Sterna hirundo) --Charlesjsharp 14:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pangalau 00:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Category "Charadriiformes of Luxembourg" not properly fixed by the nominator. As usual. --A.Savin 08:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Comment ✓ Done by me. Please, check. --Harlock81 10:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- 26D 08:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Falaises_côtières_et_eau_turquoise_du_Cap_Zebib.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Falaises côtières et eau turquoise du Cap Zebib Bizerte --Smailtn 08:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 14:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No useful categories for the image. Also some parts are overexposed. --Екатерина Борисова 00:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Harlock81 07:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Barrage_el_Masri.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Barrage el Masri Grombalia --Smailtn 08:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportSlight white fringe along the top of the mountains, but good enough .--Jebulon 17:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No categories. --Екатерина Борисова 00:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I replaced generic categories with the one specific for the subject of the picture: Category:El Masri Dam. A bit soft, but overall good. --Harlock81 09:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks for categorization, but I think the image is a bit too soft. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. There was a slight tilt that I corrected. --GrandEscogriffe 17:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Екатерина Борисова 03:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Statue_in_Foirail_Public_Garden_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Statue in Foirail Public Garden in Rodez, Aveyron, France (by Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 05:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 05:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The chroma noise should be reduced --Poco a poco 05:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
     Comment So it's an implicit oppose, you can't cancel a promotion vote without using an opposing vote. --Sebring12Hrs 06:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
    Assumed opposition per QI rules. --Harlock81 08:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Harlock81 07:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:The_Eternal_Question_in_Light_Square_in_May_2026_(DSCF7239).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Eternal Question in Light Square in May 2026. --Pangalau 06:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 13:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp --Plozessor 03:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Plozessor. Could be sharper. Also a little tighter crop to better feature the sculpture set and that distracting blue piece of paper in the foreground needs to disappear, even if you have to pick it up. --GRDN711 23:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Екатерина Борисова 03:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 12 Jun → Sat 20 Jun
  • Sat 13 Jun → Sun 21 Jun
  • Sun 14 Jun → Mon 22 Jun
  • Mon 15 Jun → Tue 23 Jun
  • Tue 16 Jun → Wed 24 Jun
  • Wed 17 Jun → Thu 25 Jun
  • Thu 18 Jun → Fri 26 Jun
  • Fri 19 Jun → Sat 27 Jun
  • Sat 20 Jun → Sun 28 Jun