Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.
Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

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

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 2025.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 17 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 08:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
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).


September 17, 2025

[edit]

September 16, 2025

[edit]

September 15, 2025

[edit]

September 14, 2025

[edit]

September 13, 2025

[edit]

September 12, 2025

[edit]

September 11, 2025

[edit]

September 10, 2025

[edit]

September 9, 2025

[edit]

September 8, 2025

[edit]

September 7, 2025

[edit]

September 6, 2025

[edit]

September 5, 2025

[edit]

September 4, 2025

[edit]

September 3, 2025

[edit]

September 2, 2025

[edit]

September 1, 2025

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Hauptplatz_19_in_Enns_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Old town hall at Hauptplatz 19 in Enns, Upper Austria, Austria. --Tournasol7 06:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 06:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The building is too shadowed, and it leans to the left. Perhaps both of these things can be improved. But at the moment, it's not a quality image for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 06:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 06:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Pulkau_Heilig-Blut-Kirche_Flügelaltar_Madonna_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Madonna and Child at the winged altar of the Church of the Holy Blood in Pulkau, Lower Austria. Hans Schlais, around 1515. --Uoaei1 05:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. Sharpness could be better. --XRay 05:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The statue is too dark. The window in the background is a problem, of course. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 06:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 06:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Die_Josef_auf_dem_Chiemsee_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Josef leaving the harbour of Prien-Stock on lake Chiemsee, Bavaria --Kritzolina 07:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 11:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Image seems dark with murky tones. Ship is not well shown. --GRDN711 16:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Die_Josef_auf_dem_Chiemsee_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Josef leaving the harbour of Prien-Stock on lake Chiemsee, Bavaria --Kritzolina 07:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 11:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Image seems dark and ship is not well shown. --GRDN711 16:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose While the composition could be fixed with some bottom cropping, I don't think the image is sharp enough.--Peulle 08:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Lohagad_Fort_Tomb_6.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tomb atop Lohagad Fort --Rangan Datta Wiki 07:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 15:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Weak sharpness --Jakubhal 15:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

File:2024-09-11_01_Wide_view_of_Port_Angeles,_Washington_USA.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the city and harbor of Port Angeles, Washington USA from the north. --GRDN711 22:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 00:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Especially the right part is tilted ccw. --Milseburg 13:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you Milseburg for you review and comment. Made ccw til correction. --GRDN711 16:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Alignment is better now. And the pano is larger now. Please check the white ship on the left. It seems there are some CAs on the railing to remove. --Milseburg 14:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks. Did not see the CAs until you pointed them out. Have made a correction. See if this helps. --GRDN711 06:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Rosa_-_Park_of_the_Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour_-_Moscow_-_2025-8_7.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dying Rosa - Park of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour --Юрий Д.К. 22:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 03:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Being another image oif an unidentified rose cultivar among the 194 in the Wilted Rose category, even if it is technically acceptable, is not enough. There must be a belief that this image is publishable in Wikimedia projects or outside use per COM:QIC guidelines on Value. Sorry, but I don't see that in this image. --GRDN711 16:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • QI project is about quality, not about value as far as I understand. It doesn't really matters how many pictures of red roses, grey sparrows or yellow houses got QI status. I personally don't see a single word in QI rules about the maximum allowed amount of images of one object or another. Maybe I miss something, so let's discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 04:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
 Comment It's not about the number of images in a category nor how many are rated as QI. The issue here is that this image has been nominated for distinction as a Quality Image over many similar others in the same category. The first QI criteria per COM:QIC guidelines on Value is that the image must have the potential for publication in Wikimedia and other Wikis. When I look at your image, I see an ordinary image of an unidentified red rose taken under the harsh mid-day sun. What distinguishes this image for use for publication in Wikimedia and other Wikis? --GRDN711 05:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The QIC guidelines do not state that images "must have the potential for publication in Wikimedia and other Wikis", they state that "our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects" [1]. The other projects bit is important, as it refers to one of Wiki Commons' key aims: to make "available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all " [2]. I can think of a myriad reasons why end-users may find educational value on quality images of unidentified rosa cultivars. To name just one: say that I'm a researcher developing an algorithm to identify species of roses. Having a subset of images that have been vetted for technical image quality and proper categorisation would be of tremendous value --Julesvernex2 07:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment One can always make up a hypothetical use, but an equal or higher probability case could be made that this image will be collecting digital dust in 50 years, with no found use whatsoever.
With this QI nomination, the nominator is asking that this image be rated with the distinction of a Quality Image rating making it better (?) than the other 193 wilted rose images, or the 3,697 red roses with an unidentified genus? If there was something about it that stood out beyond the ordinary, I would be OK with it. I am opposed because it does not appear to me to have sufficient QI value to have a meaningful future in the Wiki world. --GRDN711 06:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Whether or not an image receives QI status often depends greatly on the mood and expertise of the viewer. For example, this image of mine was rejected because it is not consistently sharp, which is hardly to be expected in a close-up, even though it is correctly categorised and in my opinion very useful for wiki* projects. This image here lacks sufficient categorisation, is not well executed technically, not consistently sharp, and the image composition is not well designed. In any other photo competition, this image would be rated as a ‘nice try’. Sorry. --Syntaxys 07:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. It should not be unique and don't depend on Syntaxys's nominations. Lvova 09:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    • It seems that you have a problem with me and my nominations if you apply different standards. It may be that I am sometimes very direct and strict in my assessments. But I evaluate the images, not the photographers, and I do so in the interest of optimising quality for Commons. What is the point of all these QI rules if images with really serious errors are often waved through on the basis of nepotism, while other truly breathtaking images are rejected because of the smallest of errors? I am not referring to my own work, but to that of other photographers who no longer wish to nominate their work for precisely this reason. This is regrettable, annoying for the photographers concerned and certainly not beneficial for Commons. --Syntaxys 10:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
      • I have problems with you just since I see such messages. You cite your unsharp nomination as an argument for a nomination that has no problem with focus, and then you make unfounded accusations of nepotism - and that's a problem. Lvova 11:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
        • In my opinion, this photo also has a focus problem, otherwise I would not have criticised it. And my complaint about nepotism is based on the fact that I noticed some nominations that were waved through regardless of their quality. If I am wrong about this, I regret it and take it back. But I would also be interested to know how other users feel about this. --Syntaxys 11:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
          • In my opinion, this photo also has a focus problem - so you're opposed, and I don't strike your voice. It's easy to check how often do I support one user or another, easy to check how often my reviews go to this section. The image can be valued, but not QI, so when your works are denied here it means nothing about their usefulness. Lvova 11:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
          • Okay, I'm really not looking for a fight, especially not over a photo and even less so over a QI status that wasn't granted. Really, that's not me. We all spend our time here trying to make the world a better place, and it's important to recognize that. I noticed a few things I wanted to address because I want to understand them. This image now has 4:2 supporters, so for me it's a good image. Thank you. Syntaxys 11:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support it's technically a very good photograph and IMO it's sufficiently categorized. You can't reasonably expect every Commons user to correctly identify the species of a rose flower. The genus should be good enough here. --MB-one 11:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per MB-one. However, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that quality images candidates should be just evaluated for technical quality. There are other requirements, such as Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Image_page_requirements and Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Value. So if this were a misidentified specimen or a plant of which even the genus is unknown, I would oppose it. Generally, the genus should be known for organisms at the very least. For a rose cultivar in a public location, it is generally difficult to find out the exact name of the cultivar. Speculative assignments are too risky. So the ID is acceptable IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Rosa_-_Park_of_the_Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour_-_Moscow_-_2025-8_13.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rosa - Park of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour --Юрий Д.К. 22:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 21:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. This image is one of 3,697 images in Category:Unidentified red Rosa cultivars and lacks distinction per COM:QIC guidelines on Value. Sorry, IMHO, while technically acceptable, another unidentified rose imaget is not QI. --GRDN711 17:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per reasoning on previous nomination --Julesvernex2 07:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The lighting is not very conducive, but with a different crop, the image could be rescued from its dullness, see note I've left. --Syntaxys 08:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Rosa_-_Park_of_the_Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour_-_Moscow_-_2025-8_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rosa - Park of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour --Юрий Д.К. 22:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 03:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree. As one of 1,332 unidentified yellow Rosa cultivars, this image lacks distinction per COM:QIC guidelines on Value. --GRDN711 17:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per reasoning on previous nomination --Julesvernex2 07:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Lvova 09:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Lvova 09:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Catherine_Hutchesson_at_the_Malaysia_Club_of_South_Australia's_Pasar_Malam_event_-_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Catherine Hutchesson at the Malaysia Club of South Australia's Pasar Malam event. --Pangalau 05:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Why ISO 6400? Very poor processing. Lot of jpeg artefacts, noised, not sharp enough. --George Chernilevsky 19:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per George Chernilevsky. It's an outdoor shot, so the light should be good enough for a better image.--Peulle 08:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Robert_Simms_MLC_at_the_Young_Greens_and_Uni_Club_Greens_Parliament_House_Tour_-_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Robert Simms MLC at the Young Greens and Uni Club Greens Parliament House Tour. --Pangalau 05:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Why ISO 6400? Very poor processing. Lot of jpeg artefacts, noised, not sharp enough. --George Chernilevsky 19:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per George Chernilevsky.--Peulle 08:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Área_de_Proteção_Ambiental_Marinha_do_Litoral_Norte_-_João_DAndretta_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nascer do Sol no Saco da Ribeira By User:Jpdandretta --Rodrigo.Argenton 05:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A lot of noise and not very sharp at the edges. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 04:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ...and an unfavorable composition. Overall below the QI-bar. --Milseburg 13:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 13:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Wall_detail,_Arroios_Market,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wall detail, Arroios Market, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 06:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too soft and too dark IMO --MB-one 18:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  • The image is neither soft (good focus, adequate depth of field, sufficient detail) nor dark (the main subject - the sliver of light across the wall - pops out but its surroundings are still clearly visible) --Julesvernex2 18:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Am neutal on User:MB-one's issue of sharpness. It is about as sharp as an image taken wiht a normal lens at a 1/570th @ F/6.3 can be, which means it is not crispy. The bigger issue I have is that this image lacks distinction per COM:QIC guidelines on Value. What is the intention-for-use in Wikimedia and the other Wikis? While the image is categorized under an indoor market, it does not illustrate that. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • As I noted on a nomination above where you used the same reasoning, Wiki Commons is not limited to Wiki use: the scope of the project is to serve all end-users looking for freely-licenced content [3]. There are plenty of ways this image could be used in accordance to Wiki Commons' definition of educational value (as "providing knowledge; instructional or informative") e.g.: as architectural documentation (documenting the geometry, wall finishes, and window colours of the Arroios Market and modernist design), as a visual record of urban heritage and conservation, for lighting and design studies (e.g., to demonstrate how natural light interacts with interior surfaces), or to illustrate abstraction in photography. I've added categories related to these uses. --Julesvernex2 (talk)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

File:094 Yellow-chevroned parakeet in Encontro das Águas State Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yellow-chevroned parakeet in Parque Estadual Encontro das Águas, Brazil. By User:Giles Laurent --Rodrigo.Argenton 09:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 10:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Good attempt but the bird species is only partially shown and too obscured by out-of-focus foliage. --GRDN711 19:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The bird is very well taken, the foliage - even if out of focus - shows the habitat of the species. Imho, the quality is sufficient for a QI. --Harlock81 07:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Harlock81 Jakubhal 17:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Bow_Fiddle_Rock_Front_September.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Bow Fiddle Rock natural formation outside of Portknockie, Moray. --TheBritinator 19:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 22:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • There is a very prominent dust spot on the right that should be fixed first --Jakubhal 04:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok --Jakubhal 08:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • {{o}} temporary oppose per Jakubhal. Good otherwise. --Harlock81 (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
    Dust spot removed. Please, check. --Harlock81 (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Snow_plough_simulator,_IAA_Open_Space_2025,_Ludwigstrasse,_Munich_(20250909-P1050567).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Snow plough simulator of the Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wohnen, Bau und Verkehr at IAA Mobility 2025 in Munich --MB-one 16:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Should get cropped in order to focus on the main subject and maybe some rotation neccessary. --Mosbatho 18:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done cropped the top. Checked the perspective: no rotation necessary IMO. Thank you for your review and suggestions. --MB-one 06:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support acceptable. --Smial 12:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems okay to me.--Peulle 08:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Lohagad_Fort_Narayan_Darwaza_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Narayan Darwaza, Lohagad Fort --Rangan Datta Wiki 02:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tisha Mukherjee 04:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are some chromatic aberration on the wall on the left --Jakubhal 06:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed there are. I'm also not sure about the perspective.--Peulle 08:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 11:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 09 Sep → Wed 17 Sep
  • Wed 10 Sep → Thu 18 Sep
  • Thu 11 Sep → Fri 19 Sep
  • Fri 12 Sep → Sat 20 Sep
  • Sat 13 Sep → Sun 21 Sep
  • Sun 14 Sep → Mon 22 Sep
  • Mon 15 Sep → Tue 23 Sep
  • Tue 16 Sep → Wed 24 Sep
  • Wed 17 Sep → Thu 25 Sep