Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.
Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages), other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Good voting practices

[edit]
  1. Do not have an image moved to consensual review ("Discuss") unless someone else added a vote with which you disagree.
  2. If you think the image meets QI criteria, use "Promotion" right away.
  3. If you think the image does not meet QI criteria and the issues cannot be solved, use "Decline" right away.
  4. If instead you believe that the issues can be solved, leave a comment without changing the status (keep it as Nomination).
  5. Do not add new votes under already promoted or declined images if you agree with the decision. The bot checks the date of the last comment, so this only delays the result.
  6. If a comment raises an unresolved issue, promoting is generally considered impolite. Only promote if the issue is clearly minor, fixed, or incorrect - and say so briefly. If you’re not sure, add a comment (don't change status). Change to "Discuss" only once conflicting votes appear.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 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 January 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 January 17 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]] 01:50, 17 January 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).


January 17, 2026

[edit]

January 16, 2026

[edit]

January 15, 2026

[edit]

January 14, 2026

[edit]

January 13, 2026

[edit]

January 12, 2026

[edit]

January 11, 2026

[edit]

January 10, 2026

[edit]

January 9, 2026

[edit]

January 8, 2026

[edit]

January 7, 2026

[edit]

January 6, 2026

[edit]

January 5, 2026

[edit]

January 4, 2026

[edit]

January 3, 2026

[edit]

December 30, 2025

[edit]

December 29, 2025

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Common_reed_(Phragmites_australis),_Jardins_Garcia_de_Orta,_Parque_das_Nações,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common reed (Phragmites australis), Jardins Garcia de Orta, Parque das Nações, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 17:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition: too much cut-off from the top for my taste --Aciarium 17:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • The top crop is meant to emphasise the symmetry of the reed and its water reflection. Showing the sky and background would break that symmetry --Julesvernex2 08:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ok, this cut is not a problem to me. ́et's hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 18:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Imho, the composition works: not the portrait of whole plants, but a view from a position close to the water. Interesting the waving effetct of the reflections. The quality is good. --Harlock81 21:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 21:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Middle_façade_of_Neer_Mahal,_Tripura,_India.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Middle façade of Neer Mahal, Tripura, India --Herpking 16:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pangalau 16:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 21:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. Some more categories could be useful too. BigDom 08:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 08:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Pez_loro_(Scarus_quoyi),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-21,_DD_174.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rusty parrotfish (Scarus ferrugineus), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 10:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry. Seems to have some type of blur / LoD. --Pdanese 13:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Implied support per rules Good quality. --Igor123121 15:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for an underwater shot, IMO. BigDom 08:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 08:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Synagoga,_pływalnia,_elewacja,_napis.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Former synagogue in Poznań. By User:Michalpe96 --Gower 08:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Aciarium 12:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but not sharp enough, and the upper part is definitely blurry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm inclined to agree with Ekaterina, sorry. BigDom 08:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 18:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 08:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Bazylika_Mariacka,_wnętrze_(3).jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment There are other images with a higher blur/lower LoD being promoted. Sharp enough for an A4 print I would argue. --Aciarium (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, it's not sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 10:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Colour-blocking_with_burgundy_gloves_and_tights_to_contrast_with_an_amber_dress_and_beret.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Colour-blocking with burgundy gloves and tights to contrast with an amber dress and barrette. --Tobias ToMar Maier 22:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Benlisquare 02:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Implied oppose per rules Too noisy, I believe --Poco a poco 19:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Château_du_Lude_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Château du Lude --JackyM59 17:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The sky is unsharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 18:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO the sky couldn't be sharp or unsharp, but maybe it's a bit noisy. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 03:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the issue here is that the smartphone camera has tried to sharpen the sky, leading to strange artifacts. BigDom 08:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 08:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Isny_im_Allgäu-Grossholzleute-Argen,_kerk_IMG_9669_2025-08-24_10.44.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grossholzleute-Argen, church --Michielverbeek 06:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Foreground is partially  Underexposed, trees could be sharpened a bit --Aciarium 08:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Imo the the light is well distributed over the photo and trees are not less sharp than other parts of the photo. Please more opinions --Michielverbeek 21:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The exposure is fine IMO, QI for me. BigDom 08:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Above the QI-bar in my eyes. --Milseburg 15:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 15:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Municipal_library_in_Villanova_d'Asti_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Municipal library in Villanova d'Asti, Piedmont, Italy. --Tournasol7 04:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 10:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is overdone, and the building lost its proportions. --Екатерина Борисова 02:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina, especially at the tower. --Augustgeyler 12:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, sorry. I understand PC is generally required here at QIC but the result in this case looks unnatural. BigDom 08:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 08:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Faa_di_Bruno_Castle_in_Solero_(6).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Faa di Bruno Castle in Solero, Piedmont, Italy. --Tournasol7 04:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 02:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice and detailed image but per Ekaterina. --August (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Perspectiva_Urbana_II.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Urban Perspective. --Rjcastillo 03:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rohit14400 05:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poorly categorized. May need to create new categories. Building name? Location? --E bailey 20:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per E bailey. Still not informative enough. The file name and description are too broad for an image that shows one specific building. There is no information about the building's address or usage (KPMG Chile Headquarters, should probably also be considered in the categories). --Aciarium 13:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks for review. These are office buildings in the financial district of the Santiago Metropolitan Region. The name "Urban Perspective" is a way of analyzing how building construction is an art. It's a way of seeing it abstractly. I don't know what other category I could put it in. --Rjcastillo 20:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Please read Commons:Categories. This is an image of a building, therefore it should be in a category for that specific building that is a sub-category of the proper parent category. Perhaps this is the proper parent category - Category:Buildings_in_Santiago_de_Chile. Also, the official name of the building should be in your description. Following these principles is what keeps Wikimedia Commons well organized. --E bailey 05:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
 Comment I have taken the liberty of adding some proper categories on the basis of this existing QI. The building name still needs adding to the caption/description (and even better to the file name). BigDom 07:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 00:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Perspectiva_Urbana_I.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Urban Perspective. --Rjcastillo 03:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rohit14400 05:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poorly categorized. May need to create new categories. Building name? Location? --E bailey 20:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not done. Still not informative enough. --Aciarium 17:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks for review. These are office buildings in the financial district of the Santiago Metropolitan Region. The name "Urban Perspective" is a way of analyzing how building construction is an art. It's a way of seeing it abstractly. I don't know what other category I could put it in. --Rjcastillo 20:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Please read Commons:Categories. This is an image of a building, therefore it should be in a category for that specific building that is a sub-category of the proper parent category. Perhaps this is the proper parent category - Category:Buildings_in_Santiago_de_Chile. Also, the official name of the building should be in your description. Following these principles is what keeps Wikimedia Commons well organized. --E bailey 05:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
 Comment I have taken the liberty of adding some more specific categories, and removing the inappropriate umbrella categories. BigDom 07:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Categories look good now, title is still too ambiguous. I would suggest renaming. --Aciarium 07:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 12:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Mostowa_street,_view_to_N,_Kazimierz,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Miodowa street, view to E from Krakowska street, Kazimierz, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 05:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rohit14400 06:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice scene, but right buildings are leaning in and cars are very distorted in the foreground. --Augustgeyler 03:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Not bad overall, but the bottom crop on the left side is not good. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Pyotr_Gradov_and_Moskva_2012_G1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Russian research vessel Pyotr Gradov -- George Chernilevsky 22:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition is off for me; sadly, the right ship is cut off --Aciarium 15:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image title includes the Moskva, indicating that it was intended as part of the main subject right from the start. Therefore per Aciarium.--Peulle 08:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Pyotr_Gradov_2012_G1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Russian research vessel Pyotr Gradov -- George Chernilevsky 22:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much space around the subject; I think a crop would lead to a low LoD --Aciarium 16:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's a matter of taste, let's discuss --George Chernilevsky 22:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Crop shouldn't be too tight. I think a less busy background would be better to make the ship stand out. But it's QI in my eyes. --Milseburg 15:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 15:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:AuschwitzBirkenau_13.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Auschwitz concentration camp fence. By User:Pankrzysztoff --Gower 18:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 00:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Impressive image, but nothing is sharp here. --Екатерина Борисова 02:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition, and colours, nothing really sharp, sorry. --Smial 13:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. The depth of field is set roughly halfway, exactly where the light brightens the path. The middle lamps are in focus, as are the gravel below and parts of the surrounding fence. I think this adds to the scene and enhances the sense of depth in the composition. --Augustgeyler 22:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's always difficult for me to discuss these kinds of images in terms of quality, because they evoke a strong emotional response. But the middle lamps are not sharp too. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition guides the observer's view towards the image center. IMO this is where the focus should be (the wall in the very background). Otherwise very good image. --Aciarium 12:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I agree with Augustgeyler, and I think the focus point makes the image interesting and unusual. As for whether this was intentional, I am not sure – Julian Lupyan 20:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Choosen Dof is not convincing. --Milseburg 15:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 15:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Kościół_Świętej_Trójcy_w_Boguszycach.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Boguszyce, Holy Trinity church. By User:Henryk Niestrój --Gower 15:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality, but can you reduce the noise a bit more, and perspective correct the church? --Mike Peel 14:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't see any problem with noise, even when viewing at full size. There may be a very small cw tilt but a big problem imo. --ArildV 13:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me. --ArildV 13:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much color noise in the sky and there are blue and red dots in the left tree (due to the color noise I think). --Sebring12Hrs 20:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. I need to add that there is purple fringing on the branches. --Aciarium 12:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_571_Archaeological_Museum_-_Casimir_IV_Death.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination King Casimir IV Jagiellon Death Sculpture --Scotch Mist 07:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 07:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The top is overexposed, sorry. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 09:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. --Augustgeyler 14:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Darkened light upper areas and uploaded new version - please advise your comments. --Scotch Mist 16:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 00:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Hamburg,_St._Michaelis_--_2025_--_2853.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Michael’s Church (main church), Hamburg, Germany --XRay 06:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too distroted IMO.The right is falling, the left is straight... --Sebring12Hrs 08:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's certainly true. However, the photo looks very strange when the vertical lines are perpendicular. To prevent this unfavorable effect, you would have to move further away from the church, which is not possible in the city. In my opinion, the chosen representation is both sensible and QI-compatible. --XRay 14:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Ich glaube, es war die richtige Entscheidung, dem Turm die Senkrechte zu geben. 100% Perspektivekorrektur sähe völlig absurd aus. Gab es keine Möglichkeit, den auch mittig anzuordnen? Für eine "gute" Totale ist rechts zuviel abgeschnitten. --Smial 13:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Sicherlich kann der Turm auch mittig dargestellt werden. Allerdings würde mich dann stören, dass das Portal angeschnitten ist. -- XRay 12:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
 Oppose Resuming the discussion in english, so that it is accessible to a larger portion of the community. Difficult subject to photograph without stitching. Despite best efforts to include both the tower and the adjacent portal, the distortion does not make it a QI for me. --Aciarium 17:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Building,_3_Piotra_Stachiewicza_Street._Prądnik_Biały,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Building, 3 Piotra Stachiewicza street, Prądnik Biały, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 05:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image needs a propper (existing or created) category. --Augustgeyler 01:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: I’ve fixed the issue and added the category. However, I truly don't understand why you moved the photo to the discussion section. It would have been enough to leave it in the nominations and tag me; I would have corrected it then. I believe moving it to discussion solely due to a missing category was unnecessary. Best regards. --Igor123121 18:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment  Thank you. I would have done so. But the image was already supported. The rules say, the only way to disagree with an existing support is by moving to CR. --Augustgeyler 14:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Categories good now. --Augustgeyler 14:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 20:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Piotra_Stachiewicza_street,_view_to_N,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Piotra Stachiewicza street, view to N, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 05:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is missing a propper existing category. --Augustgeyler 01:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: I’ve fixed the issue and added the category. However, I truly don't understand why you moved the photo to the discussion section. It would have been enough to leave it in the nominations and tag me; I would have corrected it then. I believe moving it to discussion solely due to a missing category was unnecessary. Best regards. --Igor123121 18:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Categories good now. --August (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment  Thank you. I would have done so. But the image was already supported. The rules say, the only way to disagree with an existing support is by moving to CR. --Augustgeyler 14:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 20:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Venice,_Italy_(2025)_-_001.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Venezia Santa Lucia train station, Italy --Another Believer 02:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the level of detail is too low here. --Augustgeyler 01:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Harlock81 12:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 20:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_514_MNK_Ciołek_Palace_-_Ignacy_Morawski_Portrait.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ignacy Morawski portrait painting --Scotch Mist 07:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 07:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much Highlights, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion, the bright highlights do not detract from the painting itself. The small section of the frame is acceptable to me. --Romzig 07:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good reproduction of the painting itself. But I have to oppose due to the burned out highlight on the frame. --Augustgeyler 14:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: Thank you for your explanation! Would you prefer the frame to be cropped and the portrait presented as an oval or the "burned out highlight" on the frame to be digitally diminished (personally I don't find such light reflections - which exist in practice especially in older galleries with often more focused/intense lighting - on a frame distracting when I am looking at a painting in a gallery and generally prefer to retain all or the body of frames in my uploaded images if possible, shying away from digital manipulation which I feel tends to encourage seeking perfect images for QI rather than encouraging users to take reasonably good quality photographs in general)? Am interested to learn your opinion/advice! --Scotch Mist 16:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done  Comment Diminished 'bright highlights' and uploaded new image - please reconsider review. --SM:!) (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Artifacts everywhere, there are a lot of points in the area where there are blown highlights. --Sebring12Hrs 14:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done  Comment Could only see 'enhancement scatter' at very high viewing scales (200%+ and way beyond the size of the portrait itself) but have reduced this anyway and uploaded another new image. --Scotch Mist 14:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I totally disagree with your view of IQ. Telling me that I zoomed in more than 200% is just wrong. I will not change my vote, because now the photo is unfortunately blurry. --Sebring12Hrs 18:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: You appear to have again misinterpreted my words but presume what you are referring to as "blurry" are parts of the frame that previously you referenced as "too much highlights" - would you prefer me to crop the frame altogether and just present the portrait painting? --Scotch Mist 20:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_518_MNK_Ciołek_Palace.jpg

[edit]

File:Krakow_2024_394_Wawel_Castle_Museum_-_Opportunity_Allegory.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 'Allegory of Opportunity' framed painting --Scotch Mist 07:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The frame is bending at the top. --Sebring12Hrs 11:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Other opinions? --Scotch Mist 22:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion, the frame is straight. It only appears curved due to perspective correction. The image isn't perfect and could be sharper, but compared to similar examples and given the circumstances, it's of good quality in my opinion.. --Romzig 07:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The distortion is noticeable and distracting in my opinion – Julian Lupyan 20:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done  Comment Minor distortion corrected and new image uploaded - please reconsider review. --Scotch Mist 11:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   – Julian Lupyan 20:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_262_Krzysztofory_Palace_-_Cloth_Hall_Mascaron.jpg_

[edit]

  • Nomination Mascaron from Cloth Hall (Sukiennice) --Scotch Mist 08:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 15:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit too blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 11:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. --Augustgeyler 14:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 20:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Wiadukt_kolejowy_w_Lewinie_Kłodzkim_(11).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Overpass in Lewin Kłodzki 1 --Jacek Halicki 01:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 02:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Purple CA in the upper left part (between the forest and the sky). --Plozessor 04:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The CA is very minor. But additionally the sharpness on the far left sight not ideal. I would support if the CA was fixed. --Augustgeyler 14:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 20:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Chorzów_Siemianowicka_46_attic_2020.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chorzów, Siemianowicka 46, attic --Gower 19:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Overexposed --Jacek Halicki 20:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's not overexposed, rather underexposed --Gower 05:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
  • the window is burned out.--Jacek Halicki 14:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support What details do we expect from the light source to show if not burned out in this case. It is bright sunlight. I think this is a borderline case, where the (yes burned out) light source with no own structure illuminates the main subject very well. --August (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Augustgeyler, it's really difficult to manage this kind of light. Other areas are very sharp. Perspective is good (acceptable beacause it's leaning at left I think). We don't have good pictures from interior residential buildings. --Sebring12Hrs 17:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is a bit noisy, and there's visible purple CA's along the contour of the window. It makes this image not QI im my eyes, sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support per Augustgeyler, and I enjoy this picture, the subject matter is uncommon and the colors are nuanced – Julian Lupyan 20:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I prefer the bright area being burned out to it looking unnaturally grey, but the purple fringing around the opening could definitely be addressed. BigDom 07:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   – Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_136_National_Museum_Modern_Art_-_Stańczyk.jpg

[edit]

  • I can't spot that guideline? Closest I can see is "The subject should not be cropped, unless it is only a specific part of the subject that is of interest." - but how it's displayed is also of interest. I'm happy to leave this for another reviewer if you'd prefer though. Thanks. Mike Peel 20:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Moving to discuss to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment The painting may be displayed also without the frame, imho. The problem here is that the frame was slightly distorted in the original picture, and we do not know if that distortion was real (due to the age), or if it was a result of the photographic tecnique. In this last case, the painting itself may show some distortion that we are not able to catch (or to exclude) without a comparison. Scotch Mist, may you please give us a link to a page on the website of the museum about the painting? --Harlock81 09:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Thank you for your comment - the following is the link to the gallery picture (without frame) presumably taken under optimum photographic conditions: MNK Stańczyk. --Scotch Mist 12:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for offering us an image to which compare your picture. Imho, the colours are a bit washed out. This effect is unavoidable, since it is due to the light system of the museum. It is anyhow a pity, because it spoils the result. --Harlock81 14:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I don't understand. Is it suggested here that part of the painting was cropped together with the frame? For the moment, I will suport promotion. -- Alvesgaspar 16:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Alvesgaspar: Thanks for your review - in response to your question the first reviewer preferred to see the frame but my comment, as some justification for showing the canvas only (besides the frame being very plain and of little interest), was that the museum gallery image also did not show the frame (only the painted canvas)! --Scotch Mist 21:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sharpnes sis borderline. Better without frame, but the middle top is blurred. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Although this painting image is certainly not beyond criticism, it sadly appears that since I opposed several images supported by you where more than fifty percent of those images appeared blurred, and the subject in focus only represented a tiny proportion of the overall image, you have decided to oppose most of my recent nominations, often for relatively minor reasons ("QI" is not an acronym for "Perfect Image") or on the most tenuous of bases (even after some had already been rated "good quality" by others). This is regrettable because not only are you discouraging me from nominating any more images for QI, you are probably discouraging others from nominating their images, especially gallery images that may be unique and obtained under challenging circumstances. Perhaps it is not surprising that there are relatively few gallery paintings (with often 'unhelpful' gallery lighting) nominated for QI, particularly if some users are content to sustain this disappointing situation (persistently opposing nominations, rather than encouraging better photos/images through constructive comments, is not helpful)! --Scotch Mist 14:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment That's enough, many people vote against your photos of paintings which are far from unanimous. My goal is only that the Commons galleries don't become anything with photos that don't look up to par. Yes, photos of interiors and in museums are difficult to take, but that's not a reason to say "ok" systematically. stop saying it's my fault and that I discourage users from submitting images just because I vote against yours. You know what? You are inciting yourself to provoke fear that people should vote “for” your photos. I can say the same thing. --Sebring12Hrs 15:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs + lack of detail, noise – Julian Lupyan 20:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination --Scotch Mist (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   – Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krakow_2024_286_Krzysztofory_Palace_-_1848_Uprising.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 1848 Uprising Funeral Painting by Władysław Majeranowski --Scotch Mist 07:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 08:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Barrel distorsion, please discuss, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 19:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Am not sure of evidence of "barrel distortion" - the relatively poor condition of the old frame should be noted along with the apparent warping (see upper portions of painting edges revealed on both sides) - perhaps rather than manipulate the painting itself the otherwise uninteresting frame should be cropped altogether? --Scotch Mist 10:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment RawTherapee manages to correct the problem with ‘Lens correction profile’. JackyM59 17:40, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @JackyM59: Thank you for your review and for your advice - am still awaiting a reply to my earlier comment from Sebring12Hrs, who has opposed promotion of numerous paintings I have nominated or supported, on whether distortion correction or cropping is preferred in this instance? --Scotch Mist 07:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't know what to tell you, my English isn't great. I find that these photos lack detail; the outlines of the picture frames seem very denoised on Mike Peel's pictures, and there's also distortion on this one. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Thank you for your frank feedback - in your opinion should this image be cropped (removing the simple frame altogether) or should a correction of "barrel distortion" be attempted? --Scotch Mist 18:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Slightly adjusted perspective and cropped --Scotch Mist 16:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Scotch Mist: Thanks, now it's good. And I want to support. But could you remove the little white area at the upper left corner please ? --Sebring12Hrs 17:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Done. --Sebring12Hrs 18:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 00:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 09 Jan → Sat 17 Jan
  • Sat 10 Jan → Sun 18 Jan
  • Sun 11 Jan → Mon 19 Jan
  • Mon 12 Jan → Tue 20 Jan
  • Tue 13 Jan → Wed 21 Jan
  • Wed 14 Jan → Thu 22 Jan
  • Thu 15 Jan → Fri 23 Jan
  • Fri 16 Jan → Sat 24 Jan
  • Sat 17 Jan → Sun 25 Jan