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 July 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 July 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 July 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]] 21:58, 13 July 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).


July 13, 2026

July 12, 2026

July 11, 2026

July 10, 2026

July 9, 2026

July 8, 2026

July 7, 2026

July 6, 2026

July 5, 2026

July 4, 2026

July 1, 2026

June 30, 2026

June 29, 2026

June 28, 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 and author's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Western_Barn_Owl_at_Night.jpg

  • Nomination A beautiful Barn owl from Pivot feildsI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2026. By User:BirderSajan --Ovva olfa 22:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --روتانا 22:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A good capture, but it shows low level of detail at full resolution, most likely due to digital upscaling, possibly AI-assisted --Jakubhal 03:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal -- George Chernilevsky 06:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I see so many photos of animals where the subjects were hit directly by a camera flash. Is that actually a good idea? --Smial 11:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Steepe_Eagle_Take_off.jpg

  • Nomination Take off of a Might steepe eagle from Salmi Deserts during raptor migrationI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2026. By User:BirderSajan --Ovva olfa 22:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --روتانا 22:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A good capture, but it shows a very low level of detail at full resolution, most likely due to digital upscaling, possibly AI-assisted --Jakubhal 03:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal -- George Chernilevsky 06:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Spotted_aflycatcher.jpg

  • Nomination A mid air fly of spotted Flycatcher taken from Abu halifaI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2026. By User:BirderSajan --Ovva olfa 22:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --روتانا 22:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A good capture, but it shows low level of detail at full resolution, most likely due to digital upscaling, possibly AI-assisted --Jakubhal 03:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal, strong pixelation visible at full size -- George Chernilevsky 06:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Curious_European_Scops_Owl.jpg

  • Nomination Something burning in the eyes. A beautiful European Scops Owl from Mutala Ranch farmI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2026. By User:BirderSajan --Ovva olfa 22:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --روتانا 22:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A good capture, but it shows low level of detail at full resolution, most likely due to digital upscaling, possibly AI-assisted --Jakubhal 03:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong pixelation visible at full size -- George Chernilevsky 06:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Desert_hedgehog.jpg

  • Nomination A cutie Hedgehog from Abraq OasisI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2026. By User:BirderSajan --Ovva olfa 22:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --روتانا 22:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong noise, overprocessed --Jakubhal 03:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal -- George Chernilevsky 06:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Arabian_chameleon_(kuwait).jpg

  • Nomination Arabian chameleon in Kuwait--روتانا 16:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pangalau 16:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Mohammed Qays 17:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (temporarily) Needs more precise categories of the species. --Екатерина Борисова 01:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed, chamaleon should be identified. Alvesgaspar 10:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment @Екатерина Борисова ✓ Done.روتانا 14:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Travelers_plan_their_day_very_early_in_Oman.jpg

  • Nomination Travelers plan their day very early in Oman--روتانا 16:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mohammed Qays 17:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Declined on June 27 because of red and green CA's on all objects (not fixed). --Екатерина Борисова 01:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor image quality. Alvesgaspar 10:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:A_group_of_camels_in_the_desert_of_Oman.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Fire Queen fireboat under restoration in Dock Two, Port Adelaide, June 2026 (028A7131).jpg

  • Nomination Fire Queen fireboat under restoration in Port Adelaide, June 2026. --Pangalau 02:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Not clear what this depicts. Needs more precise description and CAT. --Tagooty 03:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
    Done. --Pangalau 01:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
    Still not clear to me: appears to be the stern of a boat in a workshop. The caption says "Dock 2" and the CAT "Port Adelaide". What part of the dock is shown? --Tagooty 03:26, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo as for me. --Vsatinet 07:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Temporary  Oppose Per QI guidelines, an accurate description is required. "Dock" is too general for this image. --Tagooty 11:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
    I have just requested a name change. --Pangalau 08:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chaotic composition, crop too tight on boat. Alvesgaspar 10:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Renovation_of_a_section_of_national_road_no._94..,_Kraków-Wieliczka,_Poland.jpg

  • Nomination Renovation of a section of national road no. 94., Kraków-Wieliczka, Poland --Igor123121 00:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose You can't support your own images. --Екатерина Борисова 04:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image is tilted. Alvesgaspar 10:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Wieliczka_Park_train_station.....,.,_2026,_Wieliczka_City,_Poland.jpg

  • Nomination Wieliczka Park train station....,., 2026, Wieliczka City, Poland --Igor123121 00:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose You can't support your own images. --Екатерина Борисова 04:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks blueish to me. -- Alvesgaspar 14:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  • @Alvesgaspar: ✓ Done? --Igor123121 00:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Better but still too blue. Look at the chromatic curves. Alvesgaspar 10:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:District_Court_building_in_Wieliczka._,Wieliczka_City_Poland.jpg

  • Nomination District Court building in Wieliczka ,Wieliczka City Poland --Igor123121 00:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Llez 05:34, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose You can't support your own images. --Екатерина Борисова 04:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: It was just a simple mistake while voting on my phone. The photo is already being promoted by another user, so my accidental vote doesn't change anything. You could have just tagged me instead of bringing the photo up for discussion. Igor123121 09:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice photo, good quality. It would be better if it were symmetrical. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Wieprz_Majdan_Wielki_2025-08-28_p2.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Victoria_Bridge,_Adelaide_in_July_2026_(028A7414).jpg

  • Nomination Victoria Bridge, Adelaide in July 2026. --Pangalau 05:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Rione Colonna 08:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice view, but I miss the sky here, and all the trees are too soft and lack details. --Екатерина Борисова 02:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина. Probably slight overexposure. The noise reduction algorithm (I don't care whether it was in-camera or during post-processing) worked great in many areas but failed when it came to the leaves, interpreting them as unwanted image noise. Why on earth use ISO 1250 in broad daylight? --Smial 09:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 11:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Twierdza_Kłodzko,_skazamatowana_bateria_(07).jpg

  •  Comment I don't understand why do you support an image with such an obvious and fixable issue, but I still wait for Jacek to come and fix it. --Екатерина Борисова 01:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 08:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Twierdza_Kłodzko,_skazamatowana_bateria_(08).jpg

  •  Comment I don't understand why do you support an image with such an obvious and fixable issue, but I still wait for Jacek to come and fix it. --Екатерина Борисова 01:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 08:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Twierdza_Kłodzko,_skazamatowana_bateria_(09).jpg

  •  Comment I don't understand why do you support an image with such an obvious and fixable issue, but I still wait for Jacek to come and fix it. --Екатерина Борисова 01:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 08:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Twierdza_Kłodzko,_skazamatowana_bateria_(05).jpg

  • Nomination Kłodzko Fortress --Jacek Halicki 06:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike1979 Russia 07:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The same error with CA's reduction on the trees as it was on some of your previous pictures. Please fix it. --Екатерина Борисова 02:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support --Igor123121 09:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand why do you support an image with such an obvious and fixable issue, but I still wait for Jacek to come and fix it. --Екатерина Борисова 01:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 08:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Twierdza_Kłodzko,_skazamatowana_bateria_(06).jpg

  • Nomination Kłodzko Fortress --Jacek Halicki 06:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The same error with CA's reduction on the trees as it was on some of your previous pictures. Please fix it. --Екатерина Борисова 02:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support --Igor123121 09:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand why do you support an image with such an obvious and fixable issue, but I still wait for Jacek to come and fix it. --Екатерина Борисова 01:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 08:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Kirche-St.-Suitbertus-Kaiserswerth-2026.jpg

  • Nomination Southwest view of the Basilica of St. Suitbertus in Kaiserswerth, Düsseldorf, Germany. --Tuxyso 07:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 08:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Extreme geometric distortion. -- Alvesgaspar 13:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 06:00, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Lvova 16:25, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality... --JackyM59 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not so bad, but per Alvesgaspar. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:24, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.. --Igor123121 14:17, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:24, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

File:McDonough_Memorial_former_location_(New_Orleans).jpg

  • Nomination McDonough Memorial former location in Lafayette Square in New Orleans --Ktkvtsh 21:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 23:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Perspective should be corrected. --Plozessor 03:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 09:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Сирень_в_Южно-Приморском_парке_20.jpg

  • Nomination: Syringa vulgaris in Yuzhno-Primorsky Park, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Lack of sharpness on the main flower clusters when viewed at full size. There are also noticeable compression artifacts and noise in the shaded green leaves, which limits the technical quality required for QI. --Igor123121 08:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
    I'm inclined to agree with you, but since you're only opposing my photos and no one else's, I'd like to hear other opinions expressed without bias. --Екатерина Борисова 02:43, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm also not entirely happy with the noise performance—or rather, the noise reduction—but the overall sharpness and depth of field are more than sufficient for an A4 print. --Smial 11:56, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
 Comment That’s certainly possible; with my cameras, I can adjust the level of noise reduction in quite a few ways. However, I’ve turned it off completely for low ISO settings and set it to minimal correction for anything above ISO 1600. Of course, that only applies to the JPEGs straight out of the camera; with RAW files, you used to have full control. Those days seem to be over, though—I can’t explain the growing number of "I didn't do any post-processing" comments any other way. --Smial 22:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Harlock81 08:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

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