Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 March 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 March 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 March 04 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]] 06:30, 4 March 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).

March 4, 2026

[edit]

March 3, 2026

[edit]

March 2, 2026

[edit]

March 1, 2026

[edit]

February 28, 2026

[edit]

February 27, 2026

[edit]

February 26, 2026

[edit]

February 25, 2026

[edit]

February 24, 2026

[edit]

February 23, 2026

[edit]

February 22, 2026

[edit]

February 21, 2026

[edit]

February 19, 2026

[edit]

February 18, 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. 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:РекаИжма.jpg

[edit]

File:Landstraße_21,_Estorf_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Landstraße 21, Estorf --Lvova 20:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Car in the foreground is distracting --Cutlass 21:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
    I disagree --Jacek Halicki 22:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:A_house_in_Landesbergen,_Lange_Str_31.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A house in Landesbergen, Lange Str 31 --Lvova 20:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Car in the foreground is a bit distracting. --Cutlass 21:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
    I disagree --Jacek Halicki 22:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Vézelay_-_Basilique_Sainte-Marie-Madeleine_-_Chapiteaux_de_la_nef_-_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vézelay (Yonne, France) - Saint Mary Magdalene basilica - 12th-century capital in the nave : legend of saint Hubertus --Benjism89 06:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 07:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Chromatic/color noise. --Sebring12Hrs 10:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
     Info New version with a little extra denoising --Benjism89 18:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Vézelay_-_Basilique_Sainte-Marie-Madeleine_-_Chapiteaux_de_la_nef_-_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vézelay (Yonne, France) - Saint Mary Magdalene basilica - 12th-century capital in the nave : the mystical Mill, with Moses of the left and saint Paul on the right --Benjism89 06:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 07:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Chromatic/color noise. --Sebring12Hrs 12:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
     Info New version with a little extra denoising --Benjism89 18:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Vézelay_-_Basilique_Sainte-Marie-Madeleine_-_Chapiteaux_de_la_nef_-_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vézelay (Yonne, France) - Saint Mary Magdalene basilica - 12th-century capital in the nave : Lamech kills Cain --Benjism89 06:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Chromatic/color noise. --Sebring12Hrs 12:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
     Info New version with a little extra denoising --Benjism89 18:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Mosquée_El_Atik_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination El Atik Mosque, Sétif, Algeria --Bgag 05:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose The overhead lines were probably unavoidable, but the traffic lights on the right were not, you should have moved to the left. Sharpness is borderline, also looks a bit overprocessed. Overall not a QI for me, sorry --Benjism89 07:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Meagan_Good_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

File:Jonathan_Majors_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

File:Djurgårdsbrunnsviken_March_2026_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Melting ice on Djurgårdsbrunnsviken, Stockholm. --ArildV 06:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The violet tint confuses me, but I'm ready to remove my opposing vote if it is natural color of this place. --Екатерина Борисова 03:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for reviews - new version uploaded. --ArildV 14:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Tokyo_Tower_upview-20091017-RM-104208.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from below onto the Tokyo Towe --Ermell 06:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. It's very difficult to avoid some deformation --Michielverbeek 08:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted. --Kallerna 15:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    •  Comment Worm's-eye view category? --Ermell 10:33, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong CCW tilt. --Smial 14:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    •  Comment Lets discuss.Ermell 22:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support It's not always important that it's crooked. Sorry, perfect in my opinion. Cute--Lmbuga 00:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Esponja_barril_(Xestospongia_testudinaria),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-24,_DD_134.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Barrel sponge (Xestospongia testudinaria), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 11:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Hazy --A S M Jobaer 19:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    ✓ New version, over the bar IMHO --Poco a poco 20:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose es: "Hazy" en inglés significa brumoso, neblinoso, opaco o difuso. --Lmbuga 00:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Детали_Никольской_церкви_в_Острове.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Exterior details of Saint Nicholas church, Ostrov, Russia. By User:Ted.ns --Екатерина Борисова 23:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose I don't think it's QI with those cut roofs. --Sebring12Hrs 02:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    I suppose that the author's intention wasn't to show the roofs. This image is about some details below the roofs. --Екатерина Борисова 03:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
     Support OK for me, the author has wanted to show details of the church (per the title) Юрий Д.К. 07:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very poor composition. Negligible. Otherwise, but that doesn't matter anymore, it could have been good.--Lmbuga 22:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Coral_(Turbinaria_mesenterina),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-22,_DD_179.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Coral (Turbinaria mesenterina), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 10:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Benjism89 11:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose little hazy and greenish tint. I think it can be improved. --E bailey 19:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It seems there is a sort of chroma/color noise. There is also a purple/blue fringe. --Sebring12Hrs 14:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ New version with several improvements, what do you think? Poco a poco 20:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment This second version is better, the fringes disapear, but it remains this noise. --Sebring12Hrs 06:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Vézelay_-_Basilique_Sainte-Marie-Madeleine_-_Narthex_-_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vézelay (Yonne, France) - Saint Mary Magdalene basilica - Narthex or vestibule - Details of the main portal tympanum : two paralytics show their arms (top), two gospelists write what they've seen (bottom) and an apostle stares at Christ (right) --Benjism89 09:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Color noise, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 14:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Pdanese 14:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Yes, color noise here. I suggest to remove it Юрий Д.К. 07:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info New version with extra denoising (but not too much, which would make details disappear) --Benjism89 19:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Юрий Д.К. 07:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
    • please try to avoid such unofficial templates. it is not clear. if you support, support ! thanks.--Jebulon 22:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Vézelay_-_Basilique_Sainte-Marie-Madeleine_-_Narthex_-_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vézelay (Yonne, France) - Saint Mary Magdalene basilica - Narthex or vestibule - Capital : Joseph and Potiphar's wife --Benjism89 09:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose The same color noise here, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 14:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    I believe that extra-denoising this picture would make the textures look unnatural --Benjism89 16:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support QI acceptable for me.--Jebulon 20:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs, sorry. --Lmbuga 22:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Vézelay_-_Basilique_Sainte-Marie-Madeleine_-_Narthex_-_09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vézelay (Yonne, France) - Saint Mary Magdalene basilica - Narthex or vestibule - Detail of the right portal tympanum : Adoration of the Magi --Benjism89 09:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose There is also color noise, I don't know what happens, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 14:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    I believe that extra-denoising this picture would make the textures look unnatural --Benjism89 16:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support remember that this tympanum was initially painted, we have here remains of painting. Good anyway for me.--Jebulon 19:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs, sorry. --Lmbuga 22:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Joigny_-_Église_Saint-Jean_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Joigny (Yonne, France) - Saint John church - Entombment of Christ (16th c.) --Benjism89 10:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The compression doesn't seem the same as usual. --Sebring12Hrs 10:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes, I used Neat Image as it has better noise reduction than my usual processing software (Darktable). Both versions are is the file history, you may check --Benjism89 10:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: Anything wrong about this picture ? How would you like it edited ? --Benjism89 07:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This ono is not very sharp. Go to CR if you want. --Sebring12Hrs 12:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • New version with just a little extra sharpening (I don't want to overprocess it). I think it's sharp enough --Benjism89 10:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    •  Support very good for me.--Jebulon 19:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good IMO--Lmbuga 22:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Joigny_-_Église_Saint-Jean_-_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Joigny (Yonne, France) - Saint John church - Altar in a side chapel --Benjism89 10:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The compression doesn't seem the same as usual. --Sebring12Hrs 10:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes, I used Neat Image as it has better noise reduction than my usual processing software (Darktable). Both versions are is the file history, you may check --Benjism89 10:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: Anything wrong about this picture ? How would you like it edited ? --Benjism89 07:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Too much color noise to me (I think it's sort of color noise). --Sebring12Hrs 12:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose So I decline, but you can go to CR. --Sebring12Hrs 12:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • New version with just a little extra sharpening and denoising (I don't want to overprocess it). I think it's good enough --Benjism89 10:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support good for me. --Jebulon 19:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No EXIF ​​data. Very low quality in all areas not located in the center. Poor QI IMO--Lmbuga 22:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Town_Hall,_Market_Square.._Muszyna,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Town Hall, Market Square.. Muszyna, Poland --Igor123121 04:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • tilted --Gower 17:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Poconaco 09:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Gower. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't understand: Those who say it is tilted are right. Why doesn't the right person listen to them and tell them something? --- I vote against because others are right and he does not communicate--Lmbuga 22:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Young_Leaves_Water_Apple_Valparai_Feb26_A7CR_10181.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Young leaves, Water apple tree (Syzygium aqueum), Valparai, India --Tagooty 09:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 15:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Little bit blurry --A S M Jobaer 17:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In my opinion the image is acceptable, but not QI--Lmbuga 21:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Senetti_(Pericallis_hybrida).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination florist's cineraria, a.k.a common ragwort --Marcelpb 12 06:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 20:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. This image is too blurry IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF and light are not QI IMO--Lmbuga 21:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Leipzig_Völkerschlachtdenkmal_(Februar_2023)_5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from the Monument to the Battle of the Nations in Leipzig, looking towards the districts of Connewitz and Südvorstadt in the foreground and Kleinzschocher, Plagwitz and Grünau in the background --Romzig 19:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Kiril Simeonovski 20:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Vitorperrut555 22:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry to disagree, I think the light is dull and the composition looks messy for me--Jebulon 00:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sharp and detailed photo, but imho isn't all OK with white balance (strange blue tint on buildings). Fixable, however. Юрий Д.К. 23:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Юрий Д.К.; also very dark within the foreground that is actually in focus --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reviews. I've uploaded a new version.--Romzig 19:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Umarxon III 18:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Θεσσαλονίκη_-_Αρχαιολογικό_Μουσείο_0372.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of a sarcophagus in the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Greece. --Phyrexian 18:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose not so clear --A S M Jobaer 19:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject itself is eroded and smoothed by time and weathering. The image is sharp and in focus --Jakubhal 06:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Jakubhal. --Sebring12Hrs 12:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Jakubhal. Юрий Д.К. 09:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Apparently, it is not possible to produce a good quality image of this subject. Alvesgaspar 23:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Seriously ? So it's not possible to take a picture of old writtings or old sculptures ? Lol. --Sebring12Hrs 02:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
     Comment I always thought that ability to take QIs depends on the skills of the photographer and the properties of the camera/lens, not on the subject being photographed. Юрий Д.К. 23:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above.--Jebulon 22:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment this picture was already unassessed in april 2025. I think the photograph of the whole sarcophagus could have better chances of success.--Jebulon 22:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Yes, I proposed it again because IMHO the only problem is the difficult to see the relief because of stone erosion, but the quality of picture is good. I can also try to candidate the whole object, but it's strange to me, it means that the same image of the relief detail, with a lesser resolution and lesser visible details would be considered better quality. Weird, IMHO. --Phyrexian 18:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jakubhal.--Kadı 23:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Umarxon III 03:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor description: "The Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Greece". Unacceptable. Also, I can't search for other photos based on the description. Those of us who review do not get paid--Lmbuga 21:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 24 Feb → Wed 04 Mar
  • Wed 25 Feb → Thu 05 Mar
  • Thu 26 Feb → Fri 06 Mar
  • Fri 27 Feb → Sat 07 Mar
  • Sat 28 Feb → Sun 08 Mar
  • Sun 01 Mar → Mon 09 Mar
  • Mon 02 Mar → Tue 10 Mar
  • Tue 03 Mar → Wed 11 Mar
  • Wed 04 Mar → Thu 12 Mar