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 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

[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.

Good voting practices

[edit]
  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

[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 February 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 February 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)

[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 February 25 2026 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]] 12:59, 25 February 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).


February 25, 2026

[edit]

February 24, 2026

[edit]

February 23, 2026

[edit]

February 22, 2026

[edit]

February 21, 2026

[edit]

February 20, 2026

[edit]

February 19, 2026

[edit]

February 18, 2026

[edit]

February 17, 2026

[edit]

February 16, 2026

[edit]

February 15, 2026

[edit]

February 14, 2026

[edit]

February 13, 2026

[edit]

February 12, 2026

[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:Leipzig_Völkerschlachtdenkmal_(Februar_2023)_5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from the Monument to the Battle of the Nations in Leipzig, looking towards the districts of Connewitz and Südvorstadt in the foreground and Kleinzschocher, Plagwitz and Grünau in the background --Romzig 19:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Kiril Simeonovski 20:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Vitorperrut555 22:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC) Oppose sorry to disagree, I think the light is dull and the composition looks messy for me--Jebulon 00:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Stele_musee_Thebes_4èsiecle_BC.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Funerary Stele in Thebes archaeological museum 4th BC --Jebulon 14:00,24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Color noise, top crop, sharpness is borderline, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 18:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    top crop and color noise --Vitorperrut555 22:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

File:FC_Bukhara_2025_squad.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bukhara football club squad in 2025 -- Umarxon III 18:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The team looks good, but the background is overexposed. --Екатерина Борисова 02:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
    Also horizon is not level. --E bailey 17:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 12:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose All mentioned issues are fixable, but I think it's not QI right now. --Екатерина Борисова 04:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:CeleusFlavescens_Tapiraí_Brazil.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blond-crested woodpecker male in Tapiraí, SP, Brazil --Leonardorejorge 01:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --HurricaneZeta 01:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose It lacks sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 01:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Good compo and very useful photo, but yes, not sharp. Also some color noise here (may be removing it would be helpful). Юрий Д.К. 18:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:D-6-74-187-17_Filialkirche_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Branch church in Fürnbach --Plozessor 04:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but too strong noise. Also there are multiple dust spots on the sky --Jakubhal 04:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
@Jakubhal: Oops. You're right, I shouldn't have nominated that in the first place. But now that it's there, I tried to fix it as much as possible. Please have another look! --Plozessor 19:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks, it’s much better. However, in part of the image there are still a lot of white specks (most visible in the upper part of the tower). They look like snow, but they are not evenly distributed across the photo - some areas don’t have them at all. What is that? --Jakubhal 19:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Those are raindrops. It started to rain when I took the photo (which also explains the spots in the sky that I mostly retouched). --Plozessor 09:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Withdraw oppose, but I am not convinced the image qualifies as QI with this issue present, so Neutral. Jakubhal 14:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Bologna_September_2025-6.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Torre degli Asinelli, Bologna. -- Alvesgaspar 21:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 22:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose While Torre degli Asinelli is notoriously leaning to the right, it does a bit too much in this image (see the verticals of the left and right building close to the camera). I think it should be rotated CCW just a bit, or PC should be redone. --Aciarium 07:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Left building is leaning. --Sebring12Hrs 09:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Institute_for_Nature_Study,_Tokyo_Sculpture_-20091016-RM-121739.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture of a big cat by Édouard-Marcel Sandoz in the Japanese garden of the Tokyo Metropolitan Teien Art Museum --Ermell 06:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not a QI of the statue IMHO with those disturbing 2 persons that in fact attract more attention than the statue, sorry --Poco a poco 08:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • New version uploaded. --Ermell 11:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you,  Support now Poco a poco 07:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Chorzów_Urbanowicza_2_2021_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2 Ludwika Urbanowicza Street in Chorzów, school building --Gower 21:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 03:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO it's a bit too blurry on the sides and in bottom part. Other opinions? --Екатерина Борисова 04:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO Ekaterina Borisova is a bit too severe. the very slight blur is acceptable I think.--Jebulon 23:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Leipzig,_Johann-Sebastian-Bach-Denkmal_(Februar_2026).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Johann Sebastian Bach Monument in Leipzig --Romzig 17:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Nice image, but due to the angle and the correcitons the porportions are too distorted here. --Augustgeyler 18:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review. I've uploaded a new version. Perhaps you could check again? --Romzig 18:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
    Do not cancel the vote please. Go to CR. --Sebring12Hrs 20:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
    Please excuse me, I didn't mean to cancel the vote. I meant to leave a comment. Thank you for the correction.--Romzig 21:32, 22 February 2026(UTC)
  •  Support My hero! -- Alvesgaspar 17:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support No, dear Alves ! MY hero ! See my user's page !--Jebulon 23:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 05:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Madagascar_Turtle_Dove_(Nesoenas_picturatus)_-_Ile_au_Cerf_-_Seychelles.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Madagascar Turtle Dove (Nesoenas picturatus), Ile au Cerf. --NorbertNagel 16:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough --A S M Jobaer 17:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Seems sharp enough. --Pdanese 20:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, good enough Jakubhal 06:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 08:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Tenement_house,_10_Wareńczyka_Street,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tenement house, 10 Wareńczyka street, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 06:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose This building lost its natural shape due to PC and, inspite of PC, looks like falling to the left and to the right sides at the same time. --Екатерина Борисова 04:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
@Екатерина Борисова: ✓ Done --Igor123121 11:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No rpoblem with PC, but the sky is posterized. --Sebring12Hrs 18:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done --Igor123121 20:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
     Comment The sky is good now, but the contours between the roof and the sky are strange or overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 09:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Underexposed --Plozessor 09:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 09:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Muszyna-Zdrój_Railway_Station,_communication_bridge,_Muszyna,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 05:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Hausdülmen,_Ortsansicht_--_2026_--_0184.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the village, Hausdülmen, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion Please make the right part sharper --Michielverbeek 07:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Sharpness improved, thank you. --XRay 09:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)}
    Sorry, but I still think right part is not sharp enough for QI --Michielverbeek 17:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thank you. Last try. Please check again. If it's still not OK, please just "oppose". I know why. -- XRay 08:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose I think you have to get more used to work with a drone --Michielverbeek 06:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
     Support Taking into account the overall resolution and detail this image is sharp enough to become QI. --Augustgeyler 16:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very poor image quality. Alvesgaspar 17:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Michielverbeek 07:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Torhalle_in_Lorsch_(9).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Torhalle in Lorsch, Hesse, Germany. --Tournasol7 11:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI, although not sure about the aspect ratio, it could be a be streched out in the vertical axle --Poco a poco 13:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A nice photo, but that resolution is not possible with the camera. Thus a Panorma template or retouched template should be used to describe the post processing. --Tuxyso 20:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support This is not a reason to decline to me. Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 14:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much distorted to my taste. Alvesgaspar 23:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me Jakubhal 04:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 06:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Θεσσαλονίκη_-_Αρχαιολογικό_Μουσείο_0372.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of a sarcophagus in the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Greece. --Phyrexian 18:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose not so clear --A S M Jobaer 19:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject itself is eroded and smoothed by time and weathering. The image is sharp and in focus --Jakubhal 06:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Jakubhal. --Sebring12Hrs 12:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Jakubhal. Юрий Д.К. 09:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Apparently, it is not possible to produce a good quality image of this subject. Alvesgaspar 23:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Seriously ? So it's not possible to take a picture of old writtings or old sculptures ? Lol. --Sebring12Hrs 02:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
     Comment I always thought that ability to take QIs depends on the skills of the photographer and the properties of the camera/lens, not on the subject being photographed. Юрий Д.К. 23:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above.--Jebulon 22:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment this picture was already unassessed in april 2025. I think the photograph of the whole sarcophagus could have better chances of success.--Jebulon 22:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Kargowskie_zakola_Odry,_gmina_Bojadła.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Odra River in gmina Bojadła. By User:Lukaszmalkiewicz.pl --Gower 18:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 20:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful landscape, but nothing is sharp here. --Екатерина Борисова 03:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus not well done, most important part is not sharp --Michielverbeek 06:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Very fine work. The long exposure combined with the short focal length creates a strong sense of spatial depth and traces compelling lines across the ice. The immediate foreground as well as the landscape in the background are sharp. --Augustgeyler 11:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support But the exif info is missing. Alvesgaspar 23:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit smooth, but the main issue are CAs. --Sebring12Hrs 01:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Overall good impression. I like this long exposure snowy landscape. Yes, some CAs here, bit imho too small. Юрий Д.К. 18:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strong magenta CA in the tree.--Jebulon 21:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've decided to reduce CA. Also I've made the photo sharper a bit. Юрий Д.К. 23:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Michielverbeek 06:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

File:D-6-74-147-145_Lindenhainkapelle_Augsfeld,_Ausgang.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination In the Lindenhain chapel in Augsfeld --Plozessor 04:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Awkward crop of the door. Fixable? The description is not relevant to the image. --Tagooty 05:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I believe this composition works, and the description on the description page (in German) looks OK to me. Tagooty, feel free to move to discuss if you disagree --Benjism89 06:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • @Tagooty: Thx for the comment. Improved the description, but can't do anything about the crop. --Plozessor 06:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Awkward crop of door. The description is fine now, thanks. --Tagooty 06:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above. Alvesgaspar 23:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose idem.--Jebulon 21:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Sens_-_Cathédrale_Saint-Étienne_-_Intérieur_-_17.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sens (Yonne, France) - Saint Stephen cathedral - Saint Savinien side chapel, closed grille --Benjism89 07:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 07:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose HDR process could be better. Let's discuss. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support good for me. --Jebulon 21:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Castel_Sant'Angelo_September_2015-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castel Sant’Angelo, Rome. -- Alvesgaspar 10:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • PC is needed. Look at the building at left. And I think yhe catle itself is sligthly tilted. Otherwise good. --Sebring12Hrs 12:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I don't see a need for PC. --Syntaxys 07:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, look at the left edge. Buildings are leaning. --Sebring12Hrs 13:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Go to CR, the widget doesn't work. --Sebring12Hrs 13:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • At right, everything is leaning too. --Sebring12Hrs 13:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Olsztyn_nanga.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Olsztyn Castle. By User:OJ nanga --Gower 19:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Shadows too dark, imho --Юрий Д.К. 23:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.Superb light on the ruins. --JackyM59 08:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Юрий Д.К., shadows too dark, contrast to strong. --Milseburg 15:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Would support if issue with shadows will de fixed Юрий Д.К. 14:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 19:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 21:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose clouds posterized, overprocessed. --Smial 19:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful, but too dark indeed. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:32, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much loss due to upscaling.--Ermell 20:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any objective quality issues that should prevent this from being QI. It seems to come down to opinion. I think this is a tasteful edit creating a fittingly dramatic scene. --Lrkrol 15:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A pity that is image was destroyed by processing. Alvesgaspar 17:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 20:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 17 Feb → Wed 25 Feb
  • Wed 18 Feb → Thu 26 Feb
  • Thu 19 Feb → Fri 27 Feb
  • Fri 20 Feb → Sat 28 Feb
  • Sat 21 Feb → Sun 01 Mar
  • Sun 22 Feb → Mon 02 Mar
  • Mon 23 Feb → Tue 03 Mar
  • Tue 24 Feb → Wed 04 Mar
  • Wed 25 Feb → Thu 05 Mar