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 26 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]] 12:21, 26 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 26, 2026

July 25, 2026

July 24, 2026

July 23, 2026

July 22, 2026

July 21, 2026

July 20, 2026

July 19, 2026

July 18, 2026

July 17, 2026

July 16, 2026

July 14, 2026

July 11, 2026

July 10, 2026

July 5, 2026

July 1, 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:Camels_in_Sabiyah_Desert.png

  • Nomination Camels in Sabiyah Desert، by Yacoup almahdi.روتانا 12:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    It seems tilted. Please, may you check some verticals in the image? Also, the species is not identified (they are dromedaries, Camelus dromedarius). The categories should be updated consequently. --Harlock81 13:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    Cat done. --روتانا 14:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Mohammed Qays 16:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
    Per Harlock81. --Lvova 10:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Camels_in_Sabiyah_Desert_16.png

  • Nomination Camels in Sabiyah Desert، by Yacoup almahdi.روتانا 12:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Is it ok from the POV of CROP? --Lvova 10:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Mohammed Qays 16:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  • It is not a pure oppose, but I want to discuss this bold crop withoutthe author's clear permission. --Lvova 10:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
    @Lvova this photo from Wiki Loves Earth in Kuwait, author is a main member in Wikimedia Kuwait, and I’m board member there, he requested me to make this change. Thanks.RH🦋 (talk)
    Ok, thank you. Lvova 10:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Wola_Duchacka_Wschód_Estate,_bird's_eye_view,._2026_(1).jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 00:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Płaszowska_street._..2026,_Kraków,_Poland_(1).jpg

  • Nomination Płaszowska street. ..2026, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 22:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose downsampled, downscaled. All the pictures have 2,872 × 2,154 pixels. --Lmbuga 23:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The photo is taken correctly, it is technically good, and the comment above is just speculation (please remember that there are specific dimensions to which photos can be cropped). --Igor123121 21:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
    • In ‘Commons:Image guidelines’ it says: Images should not be downsampled (sized down). --Lmbuga 04:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 00:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Ryszard_Kukliński_street,_2026,_Kraków,_Poland_(1).jpg

  • Nomination Ryszard Kukliński street, 2026, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 22:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose downsampled, downscaled. All the pictures have 2,872 × 2,154 pixels. --Lmbuga 23:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The photo is taken correctly, it is technically good, and the comment above is just speculation (please remember that there are specific dimensions to which photos can be cropped). --Igor123121 21:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
    • In ‘Commons:Image guidelines’ it says: Images should not be downsampled (sized down). --Lmbuga 04:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 00:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Faculty_of_Materials_Science_and_Physics,_Cracow_University_of_Technology_(5).jpg

  • Nomination Faculty of Materials Science and Physics, Cracow University of Technology --Igor123121 22:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose downsampled, downscaled. All the pictures have 2,872 × 2,154 pixels. --Lmbuga 23:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The photo is taken correctly, it is technically good, and the comment above is just speculation (please remember that there are specific dimensions to which photos can be cropped). --Igor123121 21:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
    • In ‘Commons:Image guidelines’ it says: Images should not be downsampled (sized down). --Lmbuga 04:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 00:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Sądowa_street,..,,_,view_to_W,_Grzegórzki,_Kraków,_Poland_(1).jpg

  • Nomination Sądowa street,..,, ,view to W, Grzegórzki, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 22:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose downsampled, downscaled. All the pictures have 2,872 × 2,154 pixels. --Lmbuga 23:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The photo is taken correctly, it is technically good, and the comment above is just speculation (please remember that there are specific dimensions to which photos can be cropped). --Igor123121 21:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
    • In ‘Commons:Image guidelines’ it says: Images should not be downsampled (sized down). --Lmbuga 04:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The almost identical image is already a QI. --Екатерина Борисова 03:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 00:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Church_of_the_Divine_Mercy,_bird's_eye_view,_3_Siostry_Faustyny_street._Lagiewniki,_Krakow,_Poland_(4).jpg

  • Nomination Church of the Divine Mercy, bird's eye view, 3 Siostry Faustyny street. Lagiewniki, Krakow, Poland --Igor123121 22:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Good IMO, but pc is needed --Lmbuga 22:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Why are all your photos the same size? Because they’ve all been resized. Systematically resizing them to reduce their size isn’t acceptable, I’m afraid. --Lmbuga 22:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The photo is taken correctly, it is technically good, and the comment above is just speculation (please remember that there are specific dimensions to which photos can be cropped). --Igor123121 21:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
      • In ‘Commons:Image guidelines’ it says: Images should not be downsampled (sized down). --Lmbuga 04:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 00:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Mahabodhi_temple_complex,_Bodhgaya_05.jpg

  • Nomination The Mahabodhi Temple, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is a Buddhist temple in Bodh Gaya, Bihar, India. --Rohit14400 04:52, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 06:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    Implicit  Oppose per rules. Tilted --Uoaei1 06:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 00:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Mahabodhi_temple_complex,_Bodhgaya_27.jpg

  • Nomination The Mahabodhi Temple, a Buddhist temple in Bodh Gaya, Bihar, India. --Rohit14400 04:52, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 06:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted --Uoaei1 06:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 00:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Australian_Light_Horse_Memorial_in_Rundle_Park,_Adelaide_(028A8672).jpg

  • Nomination Australian Light Horse Memorial in Rundle Park, Adelaide. --Pangalau 01:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 09:25, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered bottom left corner --Jakubhal 04:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor framing. Alvesgaspar 15:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 00:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Stacja_kolejowa_Henryków_(2).jpg

  • Nomination Henryków train station --Jacek Halicki 07:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sandro Halank 12:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose These pieces of cars in bottom right spoil the image IMO. At least the very right one could be harmlessly cropped. --Екатерина Борисова 23:50, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Question Isn't filming, photographing, or flying drones over railway facilities in Poland prohibited? To the best of my knowledge, there are also restrictions regarding the people depicted. --Smial 09:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
     Info In general, photographing railway facilities is legal unless a particular site is designated as strategically important. In that case, it must be marked with a special sign like the one shown in this document, and taking photographs may even result in arrest. This small station is not a strategic site :) Jakubhal 12:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Syrian_house_gecko_in_Jahraa_reserve_farms.jpg

  • Nomination Syrian house gecko in Jahraa reserve farms, by user: Ghasem bavi.روتانا 14:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 16:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I’m probably wrong, almost the whole photo is unusable. Only the in-focus area is any good – you’ll have to crop out the lower jaw as that part of the photo is completely blown out. The in-focus part is over-sharpened; it’s not worth it, in my opinion. --Lmbuga 19:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I’m gradually reaching the point where I really don’t know whether I should simply reject such obviously heavily edited photos or just ignore them. By the way: are there any zoologists present who could judge whether such flash photos are good for the animals? --Smial 13:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 12:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Płaszowska_street.._2026,_Kraków,_Poland_(4).jpg

  • Nomination Płaszowska street.. 2026, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 23:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 23:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The same image (taken in this very second, but uploaded with slightly different name and prosessing) is already a QI. --Екатерина Борисова 02:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support At the very least, the cropping of the photo and the lighting are different--Lmbuga (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Do you really think that anyone can nominate their QI again and again just after making it a bit lighter or darker or after cropping out a couple of pixels? This discredits the very idea of the project. Moreover, according to the guidelines images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, and there's a well-known and frequently used practice of deleting duplicate images, so separate uploading of identical or very slightly different images also contradicts the Сommons rules. See COM:Dupe. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
     Comment This version is better than the other one, whose light and colors are quite dull. However, Екатерина Борисова is right: the two images have been obtained from the same picture. There aren't good reasons to keep both, imho. --Harlock81 12:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
     Comment It happens almost every day, I'm just amazed how long this will go on with impunity. See for example this new nomination and its QI dupicate. You can also easily find QI duplicates for yesterday's nominations of this user. I'm a little tired of fighting this alone, because no one seems to care, even though it's a violation of rules and practices of the Commons. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
     Comment I understand your point, but this is not the right place for this discussion since we are evaluating the picture, and not the uploader. Beside, the behaviour that you are pointing out may be tolerable for others, and here there is not enough 'space' for the discussion.
    On the contrary, Igor, I have to say that your pictures show some differences in orientation and light, even if they have the same resolution, represent the same area, and have been taken just seconds apart one from the other. Imho, it comes out the overall idea that their quality is somehow questionable. It is also in your interest, imho, choose the best and most useful picture of a series.
    Please, we need to move forward. --Harlock81 (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Maybe it will be more useful to start this topic on the Discussion page. And yes, we are evaluating the pictures, and not the uploader, but we evaluate dozens of almost identical pictures of this uploader, and I consider this, among other things, a waste of our time, because any of these images can be nominated for speedy deletion at any time as a duplicate. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:12, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
     Comment As far as I know, "speedy deletion" is only an option for exact duplicates or versions that have simply been downscaled. Different crops do not count as duplicates; they are often created to provide banners or desktop wallpapers (16:9 or similar), for instance. However, I fully agree with you that uploading masses of nearly identical or very similar photos of the same subject here on QIC completely contradicts the original purpose and goal of this project. I consider it a rather embarrassing form of badge-hunting that benefits no one, other than inflating the uploader's QI-count, offers no educational value, and yet creates an enormous burden on the review process. --Smial 10:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
     Comment I generally agree. I also think this is short-sighted: Igor often takes genuinely good photographs, but repeatedly nominating near-identical versions and promoting images by users who have recently supported his own nominations may cause other reviewers to view both his nominations and assessments with suspicion. Regarding the latter, I promote his photographs when I honestly consider them good, not to receive promotion in return. ---- Jakubhal 12:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downsampled, downscaled, as – as I’ve just noticed – most of your photos --Lmbuga 23:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info I've started this topic on the Discussion page. Welcome everyone. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

  • Sat 18 Jul → Sun 26 Jul
  • Sun 19 Jul → Mon 27 Jul
  • Mon 20 Jul → Tue 28 Jul
  • Tue 21 Jul → Wed 29 Jul
  • Wed 22 Jul → Thu 30 Jul
  • Thu 23 Jul → Fri 31 Jul
  • Fri 24 Jul → Sat 01 Aug
  • Sat 25 Jul → Sun 02 Aug
  • Sun 26 Jul → Mon 03 Aug Category:Quality images#candidates