Commons:Quality images candidates

↓ 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 April 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 April 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 April 23 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]] 06:57, 23 April 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).


April 23, 2026

April 22, 2026

April 21, 2026

April 20, 2026

April 19, 2026

April 18, 2026

April 17, 2026

April 16, 2026

April 15, 2026

April 14, 2026

April 13, 2026

April 12, 2026

April 10, 2026

April 9, 2026

April 8, 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:Tours_-_Jardin_François_Sicard.jpg

  • Nomination Tours (Indre-et-Loire, France) - François Sicard public garden in late afternoon, with the cathedral towers in the background --Benjism89 05:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Strong contrast. Unnatural towers and upper side of the buildings. In real life, they don’t look like that, nor do they resemble what you see --Lmbuga 12:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not really sure what you mean, these buildings do look this way, although late afternoon light makes them warmer. It's indeed a very contrasted scene. I've reduced a bit the contrast, hope you find it better now --Benjism89 16:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Very beautiful colors and lights. Sharp at normal size. --Sebring12Hrs 06:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --

File:Irnsum,_dorp_in_de_gemeente_Leeuwarden._18-03-2026._(actm.)_30.jpg

  • Nomination Village Irnsum De Leare, national monument (farm) at Learewei 22. (Sculpture in the garden.)
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 04:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 05:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Multiple purple fringes on branches in the background and overexposed background in general. --Екатерина Борисова 01:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. The background isn't the main subject. --Syntaxys 04:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Syntaxys 04:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Hortus_Haren_(Groningen)_13-12-2025._(actm.)_21.jpg

  • Nomination Hortus Haren. Overview photo of the semi-open part of the hortus.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 04:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 05:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Multiple purple fringes on branches, overexposed background. --Екатерина Борисова 01:14, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --

File:Brest_Hohalia_street_2024-12-25_4092.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --

File:Amsterdam,_Herengracht_2tm10_met_RM1693tm5_IMG_0904_2026-04-06_09.42.jpg

  • Nomination Amsterdam-NL, Herengracht 2 to 10 --Michielverbeek 15:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 17:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp rnough, and the right side is blurry, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 01:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Focus is to the houses at Herengracht 2 to 10, not to the right part --Michielverbeek 17:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --

File:Hamlet_och_Aurora_April_2026_01.jpg

  • Nomination Aurora and Hamlet in Helsingborg, Sweden. --ArildV 08:11, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 08:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 15:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --E bailey 19:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
    I can't find anything in focus here. --Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
    The ferries in the background are clearly in focus. As expected with an 88 mm equivalent lens, not everything can be in focus—it simply isn’t possible. This is, of course, even more apparent with a large sensor and 50 megapixels. I don’t see any photographic flaws in the image; rather, the choice of aperture and focus appears entirely appropriate. --ArildV 06:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
     Support Main subject (ferries) is definitely in focus, good quality --Benjism89 17:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
     Comment I don't know what exactly happened, but my comment was about "The ferry Aurora arriving in Helsingborg en route from Helsingør." image, and not about this one. It somehow moved here by itself. I have no idea how to fix this mess, sorry. I'm at a complete loss. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:31, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --

File:2025_Pomnik_św._Jana_Nepomucena_w_Starej_Łomnicy_(7).jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)~

File:Half_geopende_bloemknop_van_een_Bostulp_(Tulipa_sylvestris)._12-04-2026_(d.j.b.).jpg

  • Nomination Half-opened flower bud of a woodland tulip (Tulipa sylvestris). --Famberhorst 04:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 05:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. I know that it may be quite difficult to take images of this plant species. However, most of the flower is quite blurry, except for the spot where the stem is attached to the flower and also some minor parts in the background. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)~

File:Common_Woodshrike_in_Tal_Chhapar_Sanctuary_November_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_01.jpg

  • Nomination Common Woodshrike (Tephrodornis pondicerianus) in Tal Chhapar Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 09:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Aciarium 12:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable IMO --Ermell 15:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me --Jakubhal 10:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Pdanese 12:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Crested_Lark_in_Tal_Chhapar_Sanctuary_November_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_01.jpg

  • Nomination Crested Lark (Galerida cristata) in Tal Chhapar Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 09:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Aciarium 12:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks o.k. to me. --Ermell 15:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Tours_-_13_rue_Montaigne.jpg

  • Nomination Tours (Indre-et-Loire, France) - Timber-framed house at Montaigne street 13 --Benjism89 09:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The distortion due to PC is to strong IMO --Aciarium 18:53, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's too strong --Benjism89 20:36, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:12, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I hate overdone PC, but here PC is done rather delicately and not disturbing IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Bernd_Schwabe_in_Hannover_(Open_Office_day,_28.03.26).jpg

  • Nomination Tag der offenen Tür in den Räumen von Wikipedia:Hannover --Lvova 14:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose No description, no categories. Is this facebook or something? --Kallerna 16:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    Wikipedia Hannover category is hidden, but actual. --Lvova 11:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Lvova: That is still way to few categories. Please see COM:C for reference. --Aciarium 14:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. --Smial 16:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:57, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Path_to_Philopappou_Hill.jpg

  • Nomination Path to Philopappou Hill --Kallerna 07:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Poor lighting. --TheBritinator 09:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the backlight is the idea of the photo... --Kallerna 12:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please do not reset to "/Nomination" once there is a vote. I assume that the author wishes to challenge the opposing vote so that it should be moved to CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe it is a problem in the coding, I just wanted to add a comment. --Kallerna 20:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    •  Comment Vote stricken. You are not supposed to vote for or against your own photos. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me – Julian Lupyan 08:24, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Catedral,_Carcasona,_Francia,_2023-01-08,_DD_88.jpg

  • Nomination Cathedral of Saint Michael, Carcassonne, France --Poco a poco 06:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose dull light, underexposed, bad composition with the branches on both sides. --Kallerna 16:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I need a fair and proper review for this image, please --Poco a poco 21:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure of the history here, but it looks like there's a new version that looks a lot better than the old one, probably @Kallerna: just needs to have another look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
      • You confuse me, Mike Peel, why don't you cast a vote? I'm used to Kallerna's crusades, he shows up and declines all what he can on FP and QI without any valid arguments (just look at the CR section) and then vanishes for weeks. --Poco a poco 07:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
        • Why did you make the changes if you do not agree with my review? Anyways, thanks for edit, it is much better now. -Kallerna 08:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
            • Because I care about the quality of my images, there is always room for improvement. I still believe that it was a clear QI independently of those improvements. And once more: for easy fixes you should comment and do not go for a straight decline. --Poco a poco 08:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
          • I didn't have much time, and this looked like a weird situation (and still does)... Thanks. Mike Peel 20:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks like a QI to me. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support --Petro Stelte 13:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Petro Stelte 13:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Figura_Trójcy_Świętej_w_Kłodzku_(4).jpg

  • Nomination Holy Trinity statue in Kłodzko 4 --Jacek Halicki 07:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Why nominate 4 photos of same statue? --Kallerna 07:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Please discussion --Jacek Halicki 11:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. No limits. --Lvova 15:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Images are clearly different and there is no limit on subject --Jakubhal 19:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @Kallerna: Is it not forbidden to nominate multiple images of the same subject as long as they are different. This is not FP. --Plozessor 04:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Out of 4 nominated pictures, two were almost identical. It is not forbidden to nominate, but IMO it is stupid and also it is not forbidden decline a nomination because of this. -Kallerna 08:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
      • I am strongly against the word 'stupid' as an argument, as far as it is a chance that it can be used mirrored. Lvova 11:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing background --Smial 03:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Tram_in_Kärntner_Ring,_near_Hotel_Imperial,_at_twilight_(Vienna,_Austria).jpg

  • Nomination Tram in Kärntner Ring, near Hotel Imperial, at twilight (Vienna, Austria).jpg (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 06:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Very artistic shot, but high noise --Aciarium 21:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I disagree, and can't see any noise... --Sebring12Hrs 17:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture, probably very slight noise but more than acceptable for a night shot. --Plozessor 04:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support -- E bailey 02:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Cryptomeria_japonica._A_Ferradura._Santiago_de_Compostela._Galiza_01.jpg

  • Nomination Way and Cryptomeria japonica, A Ferradura, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia (Spain). --Lmbuga 00:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules overprocessed shadows with strong halo effect. --Kallerna 16:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version. I think it’s better, but perhaps it’s not quite enough. Shall I make it clearer? --Lmbuga 22:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Other new versiom with more light--Lmbuga 22:33, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Rimac_Nevera_R,_Auto_2024,_Zurich_(PANA0627).jpg

  • Nomination Bugatti-Rimac's director of design Frank Heyl presents the Rimac Nevera R at Auto Zürich 2024 --MB-one 11:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 13:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules Underexposed & already several promoted QIs from same occasion. --Kallerna 16:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:56, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kłodzko,_ul._Daszyńskiego_8a_(3).jpg

  • Nomination 8a Daszyńskiego Street in Kłodzko 3 by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 06:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Halves of cars are too disturbing. --Екатерина Борисова 02:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Jacek Halicki 01:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: I removed the cars.--Jacek Halicki 08:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Amazing improvement, thank you! I removed my opposing vote. I'm not sure I can support the image instead, but I think it's good now. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support OK Юрий Д.К. 15:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong  Oppose Fake paving. The white car has damaged tyres and rims; the rear axle is bent, and the side profile looks odd around the rear doors too. A crash-damaged car hastily patched up? The chrome trim on the roof of the dark car on the left has come loose and is hanging in mid-air. The AI has clearly messed up there. My very personal opinion: I don’t want to see this sort of thing on Commons. I’ve got nothing against minor touch-ups, nothing against artistic experiments, but I can’t see any artistic intent in this photo. The photo is clearly documentary in nature, and in such cases, large-scale manipulations like this are an absolute no-go. Why would anyone do that? I just don’t get it. I’m too old for this kind of rubbish. Is some stupid QI badge worth more than Wikipedia’s credibility? --Smial 04:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's an analysis! I don't really know much about photographing cars, and I hadn't thought about AI at all. The photo looks spectacular now, but I agree that misleading is not good. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose per Smial, even though I do not know whether the author used AI. This is a very strongly retouched photo that introduced obvious mistakes. The dark line on the pavement in front of the white car is yet another peculiarity, with abrupt changes and some blurry parts. This image should be marked with the template {{Retouched|1=what was done here}} and it is clearly not QI. In fact, reversion to the original version might be even better, though that version may not be QI either. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the roof strip of the removed car that was on the left, now hanging in the air, is also a peculiarity. I agree with the previous reviewers that this is probably a poorly done AI correction Jakubhal 04:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Dresden,_Schloss_Eckberg_(April_2023)_5.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of the Sun Worshipper by Sascha Schneider at Eckberg Castle --Romzig 18:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 19:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterized sky. It's a good picture, but perhaps not QI --Lmbuga 19:50, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 04:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterized sky and overall somewhat overprocessed --Jakubhal 18:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @Romzig: I've noticed that your photos in general very detailed and sharp but the sky may be posterized. It is very strange. D7500 is a good camera and I doubt that posterization comes directly from it. But may be you have set wrong settings in your camera (saving photos in lower quality mode?) or some processing error in GIMP? Regards. Юрий Д.К. 12:17, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I liked your answer on my talk page. Photo is good and useful but, sadly, the sky is posterized. Юрий Д.К. 15:18, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Hamnkran_inre_Hamnen_Norrköping_March_2026_02.jpg

  • Nomination Preserved port crane in Norrköping inner habour --ArildV 16:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Underexposed, Dust spots --Aciarium 17:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Dust spot removed. Taken just after sunset, not underexposed imo. --ArildV 18:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
     Not done Dust spots still there. --Aciarium 21:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Where did you see dust spots? --ArildV 10:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
@ArildV: I have annotated the image. --Aciarium 13:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Thank you--ArildV 08:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. There are even a few tiny reflections that are overexposed, though they don’t really bother me. To make the image look a bit “more pleasing,” I might have brightened the midtones very slightly per S-curving, but I can also accept it as it is—as an artistic choice, just like the choice of perspective. --Smial 13:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

  • Wed 15 Apr → Thu 23 Apr
  • Thu 16 Apr → Fri 24 Apr
  • Fri 17 Apr → Sat 25 Apr
  • Sat 18 Apr → Sun 26 Apr
  • Sun 19 Apr → Mon 27 Apr
  • Mon 20 Apr → Tue 28 Apr
  • Tue 21 Apr → Wed 29 Apr
  • Wed 22 Apr → Thu 30 Apr
  • Thu 23 Apr → Fri 01 May Category:Quality images#candidates
Category:Pages with unsubstituted signatures Category:Quality images