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 edits, 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.

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 November 2025.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2025.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 05 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 11:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

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

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

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

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


November 5, 2025

[edit]

November 4, 2025

[edit]

November 3, 2025

[edit]

November 2, 2025

[edit]

November 1, 2025

[edit]

October 31, 2025

[edit]

October 30, 2025

[edit]

October 29, 2025

[edit]

October 28, 2025

[edit]

October 27, 2025

[edit]

October 26, 2025

[edit]

October 25, 2025

[edit]

October 24, 2025

[edit]

October 23, 2025

[edit]

October 17, 2025

[edit]

October 16, 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:2025-11-03_VR_Sm6_Pendolino_Plus_Helsinki_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination VR Class Sm6 electric multiple unit Taavi 08:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp and has purple CA's on windows. --Екатерина Борисова 01:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Visible CA on high contrast edges. --LexKurochkin 07:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yep. --Peulle 09:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 07:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Ksar_Chenini_vue_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gasr CheniniCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 83-20.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Skander zarrad 07:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 16:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not bad, but there are some green CAs. Is it enough for QI ? I would like to hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 18:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 07:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:La_mosquee_des_7_dormants_vue_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mosquées Les 7 DormantsCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 83-19.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Skander zarrad 07:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 16:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose May be, the purple fringes need to be removed (on the mosquee). Your pictures are great, but there are some technical issues, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 18:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 07:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Ñus_comunes_(Connochaetes_taurinus),_zona_de_conservación_de_Ngorongoro,_Tanzania,_2024-05-27,_DD_53.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blue wildebeests (Connochaetes taurinus), Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania --Poco a poco 06:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Animals aren't very sharp. --Gower 16:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Sharpened, please, let's discuss. Again, why not asking first for sharpening instead of direct decline? --Poco a poco 22:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 07:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Castricum-Limmen,_de_Hervormde_kerk_RM25890_IMG_8360_2025-06-22_12.58.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Limmen-NL, the reformed church --Michielverbeek 06:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 17:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO shadows in the foreground are too dark, the sky is almost blown out and the right side of the image is blurry. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 01:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 07:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:VioletCrownedHummingbirdNest.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A violet-crowned hummingbird in a nest in Ramsey Canyon, Arizona --Polinova 22:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 01:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I completly disagree. The resolution is too low and except the birds eye nothing is sharp or in focus. --Syntaxys 05:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 07:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Ostrow_Tumski,_Wroclaw_(P1180406).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Episcopal palace at Ostrów Tumski in Wrocław --MB-one 20:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Tilted, unvavorable light unfortunately. --Gower 21:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 11:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info It looks like discussion. --Екатерина Борисова 01:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I see no problem with the light, but the photo needs perspective correction. --LexKurochkin 07:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 07:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Acer_pseudoplatanus_bark_Siemianowice.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination sycamore maple (Acer pseudoplatanus) bark, palace park in Siemianowice Śląskie --Gower 18:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Only a small part is in focus --Cvmontuy 19:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Igor123121 08:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 07:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:"Sfera_con_Sfera"_by_Arnaldo_Pomodoro_at_the_Hakone_Open-Air_Museum.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The bronze Sfera con Sfera sculpture by Arnaldo Pomodoro at the Hakone Open-Air Museum, Japan --Davekern 22:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support I like it! --PeterCooperJr 03:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Your camera has better resolution is this a downsample? --Cvmontuy 12:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It seems a downsample --Cvmontuy 04:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 07:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Crêperie_&_Logi_November_2025_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Crêperie & Logi, Visby --ArildV 15:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 16:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --GRDN711 16:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Color fringes. I want to support, but now, I think it needs an improvement. --Sebring12Hrs 18:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 06:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:León_(Panthera_leo),_zona_de_conservación_de_Ngorongoro,_Tanzania,_2024-05-27,_DD_54.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lion (Panthera leo), Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania --Poco a poco 09:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 12:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Sharpened, please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 22:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 06:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Leones_(Panthera_leo),_parque_nacional_de_Tarangire,_Tanzania,_2024-05-25,_DD_66.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lions (Panthera leo), Tarangire National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 09:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not easy to take, but not very sharp to me. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Update follows Poco a poco 07:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Sharpened, please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 22:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 06:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:León_(Panthera_leo),_parque_nacional_Serengueti,_Tanzania,_2024-05-26,_DD_41.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lion (Panthera leo), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 09:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp and strong CAs in the background. --Sebring12Hrs 14:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Update follows Poco a poco 07:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Sharpened, please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 22:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 06:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Saint-Laurent-sur-Saône_-_Vue_depuis_le_pont_Saint-Laurent.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint-Laurent-sur-Saône (Ain, France) - View of the town center and of Saint Lawrence church from Saint Lawrence bridge --Benjism89 09:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose You need more space at the top --Poco a poco 09:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support More space at the top would indeed be nice but at least the top of the steeple hasn't been clipped. This is still QI for me. --AFBorchert 11:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, please, let's talk --Poco a poco 07:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 07:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 07:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:The_Black_Swan_Family_in_the_Red_Lake_of_Peking_University.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A family of black swans in the Red Lake of Peking University. Four black swan cygnets surround the female black swan. The male black swan behind is vigilantly paying attention to the surrounding environment. --星外之神 15:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Poor processing, lack of detail due strong jpeg compression --George Chernilevsky 16:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review and feedback. To clarify, the image was saved at JPEG quality 95. I believe the perceived artifacts are not from JPEG loss but are a characteristic of the capture technology itself at the pixel level. This photo was taken with a 200-megapixel sensor. When viewed at 100%, the rendering of the absolute finest textures, like the cygnets' down, reflects the inherent trade-offs of a system pushing for maximum resolution. The character at this microscopic level is different from that of a lower-resolution sensor, but the overall detail captured is immense and, I argue, a best-practice example of this technology. The image provides an exceptionally clear, ground-level view of the Black Swan family, offering significant encyclopedic value. I believe this value and the extraordinary amount of preserved detail strongly support its qualification as a featured picture. --星外之神 00:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Most of the family is out of focus, including the cygnets in the foreground. Only one swan is in focus, but it has poor detail due to overprocessing by the phone software -- Jakubhal 07:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 07:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Kasr_Khrachfa_vue_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kasr KhrachfaCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 82-67.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Skander zarrad 15:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 19:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Dust spots. --Sebring12Hrs 02:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cvmontuy 10:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Kasr_Khrachfa_vue_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kasr KhrachfaCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 82-67.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Skander zarrad 15:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 19:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Dust spots. --Sebring12Hrs 02:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cvmontuy 10:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Withered_jacaranda_(Jacaranda_mimosifolia)_flowers_on_a_car's_hood,_Avenida_Miguel_Bombarda,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Withered jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) flowers on a car's hood, Avenida Miguel Bombarda, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 12:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 14:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Random composition imo --Cvmontuy 16:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I was going for messy, rather than random. Jacarandá flowers are beautiful but they make a mess of things when they fall: sticky sidewalks and cars, and an odd smell. I tried to capture that messiness by putting the main subject (the lump of withered flowers in focus) off-center, with fewer and softer flowers all around to guide the viewer's eye --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cvmontuy 10:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Shop_ceiling_Tezontepec_boots_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Shop ceiling decorated with boots: --Cvmontuy 01:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 02:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of sharpness --A S M Jobaer 11:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 11:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 12:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Giles Laurent 22:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cvmontuy 10:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Prinzipalmarkt_--_2025_--_9886.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the row of houses on Prinzipalmarkt (approximately house numbers 32 to 38), Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Interesting, but only center is in fact sharp. --Gower 13:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    This is inevitable given the length of the row of houses. With a wider aperture, the photo would generally be blurrier, even if the depth of field increases. Here, the central area is sharp, but the houses further in front and behind are still sufficiently sharp. --XRay 05:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cvmontuy 10:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cvmontuy 10:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Kłodzko,_ul._Bohaterów_Getta_23.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 23 Bohaterów Getta Street in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 00:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • I'd suggest to crop or retouch the street sign in bottom left and the piece of roof in upper right. --Екатерина Борисова 01:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 04:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I will also be happy to support this photo, but only after a response from the author. --Екатерина Борисова 02:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Implicit oppose. --Sebring12Hrs 09:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment But you reset to "nomination" while there is a "support" vote. --Sebring12Hrs 07:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is not such a thing as implicit oppose, the vote must be explicit, please do not change others votes --Cvmontuy 10:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • That's not correct. The CR Rules state that if an image is moved to CR by contestation of the original reviewer's decision, an opposing vote is assumed. The only other alternative is to promote the image immediately. What it seems has happened here is that someone has added a comment, then another reviewer promoted the image, overruling the first reviewer's comment. If we do not ascribe an opposing vote to that first reviewer (Екатерина Борисова), the only other alternative is to immediately promote the image because no formal opposition was made.--Peulle 11:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 2 days ago I wrote to Umarxon III on his personal page and asked him not to support those photos where the comment was made, but there was no response to the comment. The user is new to the project and doesn't seem to have figured out all the details yet. And besides, I hoped that Jacek would promptly respond to my comment, after which I would be happy to promote his photo without any discussions, as I wrote above. Sorry for this mess, but it seems that technical functionality of QI project is indeed more narrow than some situations require. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 11:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Kasr_Béni_Kheddache_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kasr Béni KheddacheCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 82-68.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Cheima fezzani 23:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 20:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Buildings are leaning too much to me. --Sebring12Hrs 02:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 06:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Norderney,_Strand_--_2025_--_8977_(bw).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sea foam washed up on the beach, Norderney, Lower Saxony, Germany --XRay 04:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose It is BW version of QI image, therefore is the same source image. --Gower 18:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • And again, the same discussion. The path to black-and-white photography is a separate development. Thus, the source is identical, but the result is different. I can understand that slight changes do not lead to a separate nomination, but the two development paths, black-and-white and color, are fundamentally different and were generally accepted by QIC. --XRay 05:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Does that mean I can nominate colour, black/white and sepia versions of all my photos? Stand by, QIC, for a flood of over 1500 pictures with tiny alterations on processing. Sorry, but it's a no from me.  Oppose --Peulle 07:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • If you ask me: color and black and white yes, sepia no. Sepia is a variation of black and white, monochrome. However, black and white photography should also have gone through the development process. Simply pressing the “black and white” button is not enough. The image should be optimized for black and white. And not all images are suitable for black and white reproduction. --XRay 06:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Not all images work well in black & white. There should be a purpose (in this case, I believe it is to focus the viewer's attention in the play of specular highlights and textures, while getting rid of the distracting longitudinal chromatic aberration) and a tailored editing process to fulfil that purpose. -Julesvernex2 17:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 19:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Giles Laurent 22:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I see no technical problem with this photo, and I do agree with XRay about black-white photography. --LexKurochkin 07:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 07:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Façade_Mosquée_el_Khouch.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Façade Mosquée el Khouch --Atef Ouni 08:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good, but overall grainy, can you reduce it a bit? --Gower 21:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality, I don't see anything that needs to be reduced --Kritzolina 10:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Gower. Very noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 02:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 06:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Madrid_2009-06-08_07.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Person sleeping on a bench in Madrid, Spain. Taken in 2009. --Lmbuga 18:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Taken with an old Canon PowerShot G10 in 2009, but still good. --Sebring12Hrs 18:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • @Lmbuga: , did you ask him for a permission to publish his image? Spanish law requires it. --Gower 19:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment So go to CR, but don't reset to "nomination" please. --Sebring12Hrs 19:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I cannot prove that a law does not exist; it is impossible. It is up to you to prove that this law exists in 2009, sorry. Be that as it may, that is not a matter for QIC. Propose the image for deletion from Wikimedia Commons. I can tell you thousands of photos that should be deleted (although that doesn't matter much). For example, this photo of my son in 2006: File:Felicidade A very happy boy.jpg. He was 4 years old, so I couldn't ask him.--Lmbuga 19:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If so, I oppose: "Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people." --Gower 20:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment They are guidelines, not mandatory protocols. Seek the law and be a fair person by showing it. There is no violation of the guidelines if the law does not exist. --Lmbuga 21:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment On the other hand, after taking the photo, I asked him and he had no problem with it. But that circumstance is worthless in Wikimedia Commons, which is why there is such a complex system as OCR and why I did not mention it earlier. --Lmbuga 21:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I can continue arguing out of necessity (I don't care about the picture) and, incidentally, to demonstrate that this discussion should be taking place elsewhere. A flagrant violation of copyright is not the same as a discussion like this. The guidelines make it easier to reject a flagrant copyright violation, but they do not oblige you to act as you do in a highly debatable situation. A situation in which I will not remain silent. There is a template called ‘Deletion request’. Be brave. --Lmbuga 21:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Other pictures without permision: All of Category:People in Santiago de Compostela. Some of mine --Lmbuga 22:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Now, in all honesty and sincerity, I am going to indicate what I think you mean: COM:CREEP. But in my opinion, it is a futile struggle (or flight) --Lmbuga 22:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I'll never be able to promote this photo because you don't dare to submit a deletion request? --Lmbuga 23:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment "I asked him and he had no problem with it", if it's true it changes everything completely. Just add {{consent}} template and I don't oppose --Gower 05:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality Jakubhal 05:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hi! I'm from Madrid. The law aplicable to the photo is the Ley Orgánica 15/1999. I have read the relevant parts for the discussion. You live in Spain, and you now owe the government from 100.000 to 10.000.000 pesetas. Good luck, @Lmbuga: . But if you did ask permission, that is something else. I'm nominating the photo for deletion. I am brave~. Earth605 16:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes? Earth605 16:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Woman_sitting_on_the_grass,_Palácio_das_Galveias,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Woman sitting on the grass, Palácio das Galveias, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 15:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose too blurry --Gower 16:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info The old Fuji S5 Pro produces interpolated images that are not bitingly sharp as those from modern cameras, but they are certainly not blurry. --Julesvernex2 17:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info In other words: not sharp enough --Gower 19:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Sure, I wasn't trying to be a sticker for accurate technical terms: I understand what you mean, I just don't agree with it :) --Julesvernex2 19:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture and sharp enough. --Plozessor 16:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 16:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Puma_(Puma_concolor_concolor)_female_Leona_Amarga_6.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Puma (Puma concolor) female --Charlesjsharp 11:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --AFBorchert 11:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Head lacks sharpness (ears are in focus but nose not) --Gower 12:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somehow overprocessed with strong differences in sharpness, also noise. --Plozessor 16:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 16:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Mâcon_-_Pont-Saint-Laurent_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mâcon (Saône-et-Loire, France) - Saint Lawrence bridge, towards Saint-Laurent-sur-Saône --Benjism89 09:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Wrong focus, too much to the front --Michielverbeek 11:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me, let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 12:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bridge isn't very sharp unfortunately. --Gower 15:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Subject not sharp, per others. --Plozessor 16:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 16:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Gueterwagen_001_2023_08_27.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wagon markings on a covered goods wagon (baggage car G10) belonging to the Deutsche Reichsbahn of the Cuckoo Railway
    --F. Riedelio 15:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Nice, but chromatic aberration at the bottom and color noise to fix. --Gower 17:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    • ✓ New version Improved. Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 08:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Something very bad happened with edges of the stones like overprocessing unfortunately. --Gower 20:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
        • ✓ New version Denoised. Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 08:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
        •  Info I cannot find any disturbing chromatic aberration, let's discuss. --F. Riedelio 06:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support There is very slight magenta fringing on high contrast edges near lower left corner of the photo, but not critical to me. --LexKurochkin 08:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Temporary  Oppose because of the (easily fixable) purple CA in the lower left corner (between the stones and the wagon). Otherwise very good picture. --Plozessor 16:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    • ✓ New version CA removed. Thanks for the review. -- F. Riedelio • 💬 06:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good now! --Plozessor 16:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Giles Laurent 22:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 06:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:20240614_great_blue_heron_wethersfield_cove_PD200579.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great blue heron,Wethersfield Cove, Wethersfield, CT USA --Pdanese 11:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 12:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image shows strange mosaic of sharp and blurred zones. Look at beak, neck, body, legs. Looks like some sophisticated processing was applied with partial success. --LexKurochkin 13:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 18:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with LexKurochkin. There appear to be blurred areas between sharp areas on the body of the bird. Was an attempt made to blur the background blurred in post-processing? --GRDN711 22:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment "Was an attempt made to blur the background". I ran the raw file through the DxO PureRAW 4 on the lowest setting to create a dng (as I do with most of my raws) . Other than that, I did nothing. I'm not really seeing what you're seeing, but that may not mean much. Thank you for the review. --Pdanese 09:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Except for the oddities (added note), this is actually a good image. Suggest you take another look at the post-processing. --GRDN711 16:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @GRDN711 Thanks for the feedback / annotation. If you're interested, here's a link to the original RAW and a denoised dng file: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RKRiGGgf7LEjgYtJo0TYz5zkQYbJE86Y I periodically delete my dngs to save disk space, so the dng is freshly created). I don't see anything unusual. I think that area might have been a part of the bird that was extra soaked with water (who knows?), thereby reducing detail? However, I'm traveling and my screen is small and I'm having difficulty assessing the images. It's not a big deal either way. If it gets rejected, not the end of the world! --Pdanese 11:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for the link. I have checked both ARW and DNG and see nothing unusual. The tip of the beak, the tail side of body and one leg are slightly out of focus, the head, neck, and the most of the body are fine. --LexKurochkin 06:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I tried to process it myself in Affinity Photo. The original ARW is rather noisy (both luminance and chroma), and as soon as I tried to use denoise, I saw, that it made neck feathers unsharp. I think something like that happened during the first DNG conversion process as DNG was denoised. --LexKurochkin 06:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info [1] The best I could do (and I am not sure if it is better than the original or not). The first huge 16-bit PNG is a result of ARW processing in RawTherapee. The smaller and brighter PNG is the next step result in PhotoScape (levels and CA removing). And the final JPG is created in TopazDenoiseAI. That's up to you, to use it or not. Thank you, it was interesting to try processing the photo myself. --LexKurochkin 09:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the apparent blur comes from natural differences in feather texture and some damp areas rather than post-processing Jakubhal 06:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Definitely over the QI bar for me. --Plozessor 16:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Giles Laurent 22:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 06:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:TC_24,_Essen_(TCE43375).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz 600 Pullman Landaulet (six door) at Techno-Classica 2024, Essen --MB-one 10:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 14:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but noisy and a cluttered background --Jakubhal 14:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose And the little area in focus is too much noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 14:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others: too much noise, too low DoF, cluttered background. --Plozessor 16:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 16:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Jardin_et_musée_Massey,_Tarbes.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Massey gardens (and museum) . --Florent Abel 04:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but this is the same here. The smartphone creates an overprocessed and not sharp image. --Sebring12Hrs 08:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose All trees are blurry and level of details is too low. Sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 06:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:20250728_wood_duck_keeney_cove_PD202292_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wood Duck, overhead closeup. Keeney Cove. Glastonbury, CT USA --Pdanese 10:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Interesting, but only eyes and top of the head are in focus. --Gower 16:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I'd like this to be discussed. It's not going to win any awards & I know there is some subjectivity to QI, but I feel that the pic meets QI crtieria. --Pdanese 21:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This photo was taken at f/9, but probably from a very close distance. Focus is on the eyes which are perfectly sharp. To me, it’s a good example of using depth of field in the way described in the COM:IG, and it’s not a problem that the bird’s beak isn’t sharp. Jakubhal 04:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I still think that the blurry head parts in the foreground are not acceptable for QI, at least for me. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jakubhal --Cvmontuy 12:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF too small, and even the sharp parts are not perfect due high ISO. --Plozessor 16:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 16:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Cipreskegels van een Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). 02-09-2025. (actm.) 02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cypress cones of a Cupressus sempervirens 'Stricta'. Focus stack of 42 photos.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Llez 05:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Temporary  Oppose Sorry, but those cones do not belong to a tree of Cupressus sempervirens 'Stricta' (I'm sure of that Category:Cupressus sempervirens (cultivated, seed cones); Also, they are too small even though they are opening to release the seeds). According to a search on Google, it may be Chamaecyparis lawsoniana. --Harlock81 19:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    Please, compare your pictures with File:Ajdovščina - lawsonova pacipresa (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana).jpg. --Harlock81 (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    I added here some links to GBIF. --Harlock81 18:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    Following the discussion here, I asked for the renaming of the file, and I updated the description. I agree that the quality of the picture is good.  Support --Harlock81 18:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, greenish IMHO (white balance?). I don't think it's a white balance issue: Very unfortunate background. The greenish light is annoying.--Lmbuga 07:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Giles Laurent 22:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 18:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Oost-Gelre-Lichtenvoorde,_de_Sint-Bonifatiuskerk_GM1586-LT23_IMG_6601_2025-04-06_10.42.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lichtenvoorde-NL, church: the Sint-Bonifatiuskerk --Michielverbeek 06:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Llez 06:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see two problems here: verticals are slightly leaning CCW (fixable) and the upper part of the church is out of focus (unfixable). Sorry. --LexKurochkin 06:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 07:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

File:St._Francis_of_Assisi_Church._2_Franciszkańska_street,_Old_Town,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Francis of Assisi Church, 2 Franciszkańska street, Old Town, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 13:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 17:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Compression visible on the sky. Bottom cropped a bit tight. --Gower 12:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    • @Gower: , you broke this promotion without sending it to CR. --Lvova 16:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
      •  Info Compression visible on the sky. Bottom cropped a bit tight. --Gower 18:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 06:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

File:El_Kbob_Mosque.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination El Kbob Mosque is a mosque for worship and educational purposesThis is a photo of the protected monument identified by the ID 82-86 in Tunisia.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Bill.pix 21:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 21:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice photo, but not QI IMO: CAs (door), noise (or something else, sky), building cropped on the right side. The sky seems subexposed and not natural. Overprocesed IMO --Lmbuga 22:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Really tight crop, but I think, exposure is ok for the sunlit white parts of the building. Some small remains of CA exist, but not disturbing in A4 size. --Smial 12:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong noise in the sky and cropped out right part of building. --LexKurochkin 11:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 11:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambrussum_-_Pont.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ambrussum_-_Pont--JackyM59 07:42, 26 octobre 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Categories missing, geo location missing, a lot of dark shadows. Please try to fix it. --XRay 09:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Catégories done --JackyM59 13:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no. You added randomly categories, most of the red links. --XRay 08:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry that the photo ended up in the discussion. I made a mistake with the comment. --XRay 08:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support image and categories are ok now IMO. --MB-one 08:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Two of three categories are very common and should be fixed with the location. --XRay 11:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?

File:Ambrussum_-_Remparts_Celtes.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ambrussum - Remparts Celtes--JackyM59 07:42, 26 octobre 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 12:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please add the categories first. --XRay 13:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Catégories done --JackyM59 13:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Again: No. Please do not add categories randomly. Have a look to COM:CAT. --XRay 08:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Sebring12Hrs 16:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: Please have a look to the categories. They are not fixed. --XRay 08:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment "Category:Ambrussum" is ok, but the others are too broad. I agree. --Sebring12Hrs 11:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Now ok. --Sebring12Hrs 02:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Giles Laurent 22:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 06:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Oeufs_d'encornets_sur_une_plage_d'Hardelot.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Oeufs d'encornets sur une plage d'Hardelot --JackyM59 17:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Good, but without categories--Lmbuga 18:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. Categories were added by the author. --Lvova 12:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Unidentified subject: Category:Céphalopodes. Études générales is a lie false. I hope to hear from the user, but I think this is serious. The other category is Category:Mollusca. Very insufficient. Credible?--Lmbuga 21:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Correction to the previous comment caused by poor English--Lmbuga 09:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Camelus_bactrianus_skull_in_Jardim_Zoológico_de_Curitiba.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Camelus bactrianus skull in Jardim Zoológico de Curitiba --Wilfredor 01:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Nice but background is weird, partially removed, partially not, somewhere with geometric black (bat-like?) shapes. --Gower 21:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noisy and overporcessed. --Sebring12Hrs 11:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    I uploaded a new version --Wilfredor 13:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    It's way better now. Only one spot to correct, I added imagenote. --Gower 18:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @Gower and Sebring12Hrs: Please take a look te new version. Thanks --Wilfredor 18:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support now it is ok --Gower 20:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Too blurred to me. --Sebring12Hrs 22:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Gower 20:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 28 Oct → Wed 05 Nov
  • Wed 29 Oct → Thu 06 Nov
  • Thu 30 Oct → Fri 07 Nov
  • Fri 31 Oct → Sat 08 Nov
  • Sat 01 Nov → Sun 09 Nov
  • Sun 02 Nov → Mon 10 Nov
  • Mon 03 Nov → Tue 11 Nov
  • Tue 04 Nov → Wed 12 Nov
  • Wed 05 Nov → Thu 13 Nov