Commons:QIC

↓ 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

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

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

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

Image page requirements
  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
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

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution

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

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

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

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

How to nominate

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

<translate nowrap><!--T:35-->
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}</translate>

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:

<translate nowrap><!--T:38-->
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}</translate>

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

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

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

Evaluating images

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

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

  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

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

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 May 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 May 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)

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 May 13 2026 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

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

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

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations


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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 06:24, 13 May 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).


May 13, 2026

May 12, 2026

May 11, 2026

May 10, 2026

May 9, 2026

May 8, 2026

May 7, 2026

May 6, 2026

May 5, 2026

May 4, 2026

May 3, 2026

May 2, 2026

May 1, 2026

April 27, 2026

Consensual review

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:20250708_Mirador_del_Llano_de_Ucanca_02.jpg

  • Nomination View from the Mirador del Llano de Ucanca in Parque Nacional del Teide to a peak nearby --FlocciNivis 16:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Too soft --Vitorperrut555 05:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Burglesau,_Luftbild-20260501-RM-160302.jpg

  • Nomination Burglesau in the Bamberg district, aerial view --Ermell 05:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality --Michielverbeek 06:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Nominated and promoted twice on May 11 and 12. --Екатерина Борисова 03:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Catharanthus_roseus_flower_with_rain_droplets.jpg

  • Nomination Catharanthus roseus flower with rain droplets --R1F4T 14:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Disturbing luminance noise, fixable? --F. Riedelio 15:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
    @F. Riedelio Tried to fix the noise by blurring the bg --R1F4T 11:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Much to small and well below the absolute minimum of 2 megapixels. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Robert Flogaus-Faust: I accidentally uploaded the low resolation image i uploaded a new version better quality one --R1F4T 13:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Thanks, but for whatever reason I cannot load the larger version, no matter in which web browser. I always get the smaller version. This is really odd. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Robert Flogaus-Faust: few days ago i also faced the similar issue even after i upload a new version it wont load the latest revision but after sometime it got resolved --R1F4T 02:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Кронштадт,_петуния_на_территории_Адмиралтейства_16.jpg

File:2026-05-08_Bahnradsport,_Steherrennen,_Sparkasse_Steher_Grand_Prix_2026_STP_3564.jpg

  • Nomination Sparkasse Steher Grand Prix 2026: above: Jan Freuler (Lachen/CH) behind Flavio Küng (Watt/CH, pacer); below: Karl Omann (Forst) behind Patrick Wolfrum (Peitz, pacer) --Stepro 22:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, Needs more categories --Aciarium 22:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The photo has been categorised more than adequately, as the others are listed in the parent categories. The image noise is quite low and perfectly acceptable, given the high ISO setting that is essential for this kind of sports photography. --Smial 13:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

File:2026-05-08_Bahnradsport,_Steherrennen,_Sparkasse_Steher_Grand_Prix_2026_STP_3590.jpg

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

File:2026-04-26_Konzert_Heavysaurus_in_Erfurt_STP_2756.jpg

  • Nomination Heavysaurus - METAL Tour 2026; concert in Erfurt; Dino Rock for Kids. --Stepro 22:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules Needs more categories --Aciarium 22:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Aciarium: You should send an image to CR section if you disagree with supporting vote. --Екатерина Борисова 02:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Aciarium: What other categories do you suggest? In my opinion, all essential categories are already included in the parent category, so they would be misplaced if listed individually. --Stepro 05:35, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Stepro: I have added more categories regarding the picture's contents. --Aciarium 10:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality Jakubhal 04:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Bank_vole_(Clethrionomys_glareolus)_Drenthe.jpg

  • Nomination Bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus) --Charlesjsharp 22:09, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 00:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Most of the animal is not very sharp --Aciarium 22:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support sharp enough regarding the rather high resolution. --Smial 11:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Trier_Rotes_Haus_BW_1.JPG

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Row_Bridge_Wasdale_Head_Lake_District_2025_01.jpg

  • Nomination Row Bridge over Mosedale Beck --Julian Herzog 16:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 17:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules Needs more categories --Aciarium 22:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Aciarium: Can you be more specific? I'm covering time, place and subject. Details about the subject are covered through the subject category. --Julian Herzog 06:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Julian Herzog: I was looking for a category regarding the river (I have connected the bridge's category to the one of the stream). Probably a bit overcritical in hindsight.  Support --Aciarium 22:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 06:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Merkurtempel_Schloss_Schwetzingen_-_02.jpg

  • Nomination Temple of Mercury, Schwetzingen Palace. --NorbertNagel 15:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules Needs more categories --Aciarium 22:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Aciarium: You should send an image to CR section if you disagree with supporting vote. --Екатерина Борисова 02:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support If the main object has its own specific category it's good enough and meets QI criteria IMO. Additional categories are welcomed but not mandatory. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Glücksschwein_Schwetzingen_-_04.jpg

  • Nomination Glücksschwein Schwetzingen. --NorbertNagel 15:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 20:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Subject is cut off at the bottom; Needs more categories --Aciarium 22:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Anvil_shaped_cumulus_panorama_edit_crop.jpg

  • Nomination Cumulonimbus capillatus incus floating over Swifts Creek, Victoria in Australia. By User:Fir0002 --Gower 12:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 16:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor resolution. --Aciarium 22:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Aciarium. The resolution is not sufficient for an award these days. --Milseburg 13:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 13:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Caminito_del_Rey,_Málaga,_España,_2023-05-18,_DD_48.jpg

  • Nomination Caminito del Rey, Málaga, Spain --Poco a poco 11:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 11:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Needs more categories --Aciarium 22:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Aciarium: You should send an image to CR section if you disagree with supporting vote. --Екатерина Борисова 02:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't think this CR makes sense, Aciarium. There is a specific cat for this bridge, the mother cats of this include Desfiladero de los Gaitanes, too. What do you have in mind?! --Poco a poco 06:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Poco a poco: In hindsight, I probably was overly critical. I would have expected a few more categories about what is being shown in the image, mostly in regards of the river and the bridge types. I have added relevant categories to the original category "Puente Colgante del Caminito del Rey".  Fine now --Aciarium 11:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Caminito_del_Rey,_Málaga,_España,_2023-05-18,_DD_52.jpg

  • Nomination Caminito del Rey, Málaga, Spain --Poco a poco 11:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. (Vertiginous !) --Benjism89 11:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
    Needs more categories --Aciarium 22:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Aciarium: You should send an image to CR section if you disagree with supporting vote. --Екатерина Борисова 02:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Tough vote, Aciarium, I've added the path as category, which is visible. One of the mother cats is the name of the canyon, Desfiladero de los Gaitanes, I want do avoid overcat. So, what else, do you then miss? --Poco a poco 06:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: As stated on your other nomination, I think I was overcritical. Categorization looks good due to parent categories, I should have checked earlier.  Support --Aciarium 11:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Caminito_del_Rey,_Málaga,_España,_2023-05-18,_DD_41.jpg

  • Nomination Caminito del Rey, Málaga, Spain --Poco a poco 11:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 11:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A significant portion of the image is not very sharp --Aciarium 22:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support by far sharp enough regarding the high resolution. --Smial 13:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 09:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Crabe_Marbré_plage_de_Radès.jpg

  • Nomination This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2026. By User:Smailtn --Ovva olfa 08:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poconaco 09:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall not very good quality: Poor resolution, some chromatic aberration and noise. --Aciarium 22:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Lac_el_Gouassmia_Bazina.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Manhole_cover_in_Essen_03.jpg

  • Nomination Manhole cover in Essen --Lvova 07:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 08:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not too sharp in some areas --Aciarium 22:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Kazan_Zilantov_Monastery_Holy_Trinity_Cathedral_2024-07-17_2357.jpg

  • Nomination Holy Trinity Cathedral, Zilantov Monastery, Kazan, Tatarstan. --Mike1979 Russia 07:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 07:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules Needs more categories --Aciarium 22:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Aciarium: You should send an image to CR section if you disagree with supporting vote. --Екатерина Борисова 02:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support If the main object has its own specific category it's good enough and meets QI criteria IMO. Additional categories are welcomed but not mandatory. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Kazan_Zilantov_Monastery_St_Michael_Church_with_Bell_Tower_2024-07-17_2353.jpg

  • Nomination Gate bell tower and church of Saint Michael, Zilantov Monastery, Kazan, Tatarstan. --Mike1979 Russia 07:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules Needs more categories --Aciarium 22:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Aciarium: You should send an image to CR section if you disagree with supporting vote. --Екатерина Борисова 02:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support If the main object has its own specific category it's good enough and meets QI criteria IMO. Additional categories are welcomed but not mandatory. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Pahela_Falgun,_Suhrawardy_Udyan_Mukto_Moncho_(000883).jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Château_de_Logne_-_L'Ourthe.jpg

  • Nomination Château de Logne - L'Ourthe --JackyM59 10:29, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 10:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit blurry on the left side, overexposed on the right side, CA's in upper branches. --Екатерина Борисова 03:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kamienna_Góra,_ul._Korczaka_1G_(3).jpg

  • Nomination 1G Korczaka Street in Kamienna Góra 3 --Jacek Halicki 02:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Llez 05:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (Temporarily oppose) The same issue with the top of the trees like is was on this image. --Екатерина Борисова 03:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
@Екатерина Борисова: ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 14:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Acceptable now, thanks. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --SM:!) (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Welle_50_in_Bielefeld_(1).jpg

  • Nomination Building at Welle 50 in Bielefeld, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. --Tournasol7 01:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • White balance too cold for a picture taken at noon. (Also could be a bit brighter.) --Plozessor 03:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support White balance is perfect, very good lights despite the bad weather and very good sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 16:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree with the WB. --Plozessor 03:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Airress_performing_during_Queens_and_Kings_of_Pride,_Windsor-Essex_Pride_Fest,_2025-08-09_24.jpg

  • Nomination Airress performing during Queens and Kings of Pride, Windsor-Essex Pride Fest, 2025-08-09 --Crisco 1492 00:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Digital artefacts at face - looks like motion blur reduction gone wrong --Grunpfnul 16:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Could you specify? I'm seeing strands of hair, but nothing of the haloing one would expect from digitally reducing motion blur (and this hasn't had motion blur reduction in post anyways). --Crisco 1492 01:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info Moving to CR because it looks like the nominator wishes to challenge the opposing vote. Please do not revert to "/Nomination" once there is a vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image noise reduction and sharpening really went head to head here. I’m not sure which one came out on top, but the photo as a whole has lost out, sorry. --Smial 13:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

File:VELO_2025,_Berlin_(P1047132).jpg

  • Nomination Contestant at the Airfield Race on the former Tempelhof Airport, Berlin --MB-one 06:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition looks random --Aciarium 18:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Aciarium: please elaborate. The composition is deliberate to show the cyclist racing in front of the historic aircraft on display. --MB-one 20:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    @MB-one: Perhaps it's a matter of taste; the right propeller, the cyclist, and the cone are rather cramped together, while in the periphery of the image there is quite much empty space. --Aciarium 22:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Composition is OK, but I'd suggest to crop some of the blurry bottom part. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:53, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Poland_2025_110_Cieszyn_Cemetery_-_Matter_Angel.jpg

  • Nomination Matter Angel Sculpture (side view) --Scotch Mist 05:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Slightly oversharpened --Grunpfnul 08:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thank you for your review - am not sure what you have determined is indicative of "slightly oversharpened" so would welcome other perspectives on this! --Scotch Mist 09:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Somewhat oversharpened, but not too disturbing and good enough in A4 size. --Smial 13:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Tulpe_'Purissima'_im_botanischen_Garten_München_Nymphenburg_02.jpg

  • Nomination Fosteriana tulipa cultivar 'Purissima' in the botanical garden in Munich, Germany --Kritzolina 05:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 13:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules Good quality but dark? --ArildV 13:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Temporarily  Oppose. WB should be improved. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Quite good to me. Alvesgaspar 15:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

  • Tue 05 May → Wed 13 May
  • Wed 06 May → Thu 14 May
  • Thu 07 May → Fri 15 May
  • Fri 08 May → Sat 16 May
  • Sat 09 May → Sun 17 May
  • Sun 10 May → Mon 18 May
  • Mon 11 May → Tue 19 May
  • Tue 12 May → Wed 20 May
  • Wed 13 May → Thu 21 May Category:Quality images#candidates