Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
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.

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 November 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 November 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 November 10 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]] 17:57, 10 November 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

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).


November 10, 2025

[edit]

November 9, 2025

[edit]

November 8, 2025

[edit]

November 7, 2025

[edit]

November 6, 2025

[edit]

November 5, 2025

[edit]

November 4, 2025

[edit]

November 3, 2025

[edit]

November 2, 2025

[edit]

November 1, 2025

[edit]

October 31, 2025

[edit]

October 30, 2025

[edit]

October 29, 2025

[edit]

October 28, 2025

[edit]

October 27, 2025

[edit]

October 26, 2025

[edit]

October 24, 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:Picabueyes_piquigualdo_(Buphagus_africanus)_sobre_un_hipopótamo_(Hippopotamus_amphibius),_parque_nacional_Serengueti,_Tanzania,_2024-05-26,_DD_14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yellow-billed oxpecker (Buphagus africanus) on a hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 10:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I understand this was taken from a long distance (600 mm + a large part of the picture cropped out I guess, considering the res), but I don't think level of detail / sharpness is good enough here --Benjism89 10:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Igor123121 11:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Benjism89. --Sebring12Hrs 13:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 13:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Picabueyes_piquigualdo_(Buphagus_africanus)_sobre_un_hipopótamo_(Hippopotamus_amphibius),_parque_nacional_Serengueti,_Tanzania,_2024-05-26,_DD_16.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yellow-billed oxpecker (Buphagus africanus) on a hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 10:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I understand this was taken from a long distance (600 mm + a large part of the picture cropped out I guess, considering the res), but I don't think level of detail / sharpness is good enough here --Benjism89 10:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Igor123121 11:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Benjism89. --Sebring12Hrs 13:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 13:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Bolghar_Cathedral_Mosque_Minaret_Interior_2024-07-12_1089.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 10:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:(Козелець)_Миколаївська_церква_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination (Kozelec) St. Nicholas Church Interior. By User:Oleksandr Malyon --Earth605 07:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise, too little sharpness. --Plozessor 09:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 12:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 10:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Old_town_hall_of_Lorsch_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Old town hall of Lorsch, Hesse, Germany. --Tournasol7 03:06, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted during PC. --Lvova 11:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Lvova. --E bailey 14:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lvova. --Augustgeyler 16:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 10:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Ales_stenar_(Ale's_stones),_a_megalithic_monument_in_Scania_in_southern_Sweden.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Partial view of Ales stenar (Ale's stones), a megalithic monument in Scania in southern Sweden. It is a stone ship, oval in outline, formed by 59 large boulders, weighing up to 5 tonnes each. --OleNeitzel 22:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Like the angle --Earth605 07:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Most of the image is out of focus. The blurred monument in the foreground that takes one third of the photo is disturbing --Jakubhal 20:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal --MB-one (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 15:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Tenement house, 50 Grodzka street, Kraków, Poland (1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tenement house, 50 Grodzka Street, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I assume that the left side of this building is actually no higher than the right, so the horizontal alignment here is unfortunate. But I'm ready to support this image if the author makes corrections. --Екатерина Борисова 02:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The the low angle perspective was over-corrected (see first version), leading to heavy distortion and unrealistic proportions. --Augustgeyler 16:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Muscovy_duck_beside_a_pond.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Muscovy duck (Cairina moschata) by a pond --RIDH-1 08:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Nominated twice. Should be removed. --George Chernilevsky 09:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Decline it due to dupnom --Earth605 14:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support There are no good ways to categorize --Earth605 14:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
     Comment I removed the supporting vote that lacks an understandable reason. You have one vote per nomination. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • @Earth605: What did you mean to vote? Oppose or support? You can only do one or the other.--Peulle 10:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Category of location is always helpful and quite easy to add. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Duplicate nomination indeed. This image must be declined. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Chwalibogowski_tenement_house,_13_św._Jana_Street,_Old_Town,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chwalibogowski tenement house, 13 św. Jana street, Old Town, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 19:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Horizontal alignment is needed. --Екатерина Борисова 23:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough --Earth605 06:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness issue not solved. --Plozessor 06:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, borderline sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 15:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: Since it’s on the borderline, it probably meets the minimum requirements, right? Igor123121 11:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 16:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Grand_arc_triomphal_dédié_à_Septime_Sévère_-_Haidra_vue1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grand arc triomphal dédié à Septime Sévère en 195 par décret des décursions, enclavé dans une enceinte d'époque byzantineCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 42-33.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Skander zarrad 14:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Not so bad, but the sky is a bit noisy and there is a dust spot (see note). --Sebring12Hrs 14:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Earth605 16:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please, I ask for an improvement. --Sebring12Hrs 18:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. Grainy sky is probably acceptable, but dust spot clearly is not. --Plozessor 06:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I would support it if the dust spot is removed. --LexKurochkin 09:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Good image but dust spot should be retouched Юрий Д.К. 18:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Crocus1979.pp.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Crocus --Paulparadis 12:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Like the lighting on the flowers --Earth605 16:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 18:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The central group is quite sharp, and on so short distance photo it is technically impossible to get so wide DoF to cover them all --LexKurochkin 09:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Because central flowers are sharp Юрий Д.К. 18:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 08:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Intermediate_periwinkle_(Vinca_difformis),_Calouste_Gulbenkian_Garden,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Intermediate periwinkle (Vinca difformis), Calouste Gulbenkian Garden, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 11:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Nice, but too shallow DoF, only one flower in focus without leaves. --Gower 17:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Indeed: as the title indicates, the subject is a single flower (in-focus, prominently placed, well lit), the rest of the frame is there for context. More depth-of-field would make the flower stand out less and harshen the bokeh --Julesvernex2 18:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I think that it may be a creative intent of the author to focus only one flower. Good image. Юрий Д.К. 18:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Юрий Д.К.--Lmbuga 15:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The part of the photo that is in focus is much too small IMO. Sorry --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Бухара,_баллон_на_Намазгох-Джахонгироне.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Oxygen tank as a guard stone at the corner of Namazogh and Jakhongiron streets. Bukhara, Uzbekistan. --Красный 08:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The building in the back is a big distraction --Earth605 16:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Seriously Earth605 ?? Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 18:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality. I consider it street photography. --LexKurochkin 09:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Lmbuga 15:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 09:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Vue_du_Musée_des_promesses_14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vue du Musée des promesses au Jardin d'Essai de la Fondation Zinsou à Ouidah --Fawaz.tairou 22:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Earth605 05:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 10:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose All 4 corners are out of focus. --LexKurochkin 09:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blurred by denoising, probably slight pincushion destortion. This lens is not really useful in architecture photography. f/11 and ISO100 would help somewhat. --Smial 16:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 08:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2025_-_Pashkov's_House1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2025 - Pashkov's House --Юрий Д.К. 20:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Difficult corner, but imo the trees are disturbing the composition too much --Michielverbeek 18:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. This view has a right to photographing but it isn't possible to shot side of the building without trees --Юрий Д.К. 21:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I like the composition. --Sebring12Hrs 19:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have a feeling that the photo was somehow turned, because bushes even on a slope can't grow at that angle, it's completely unnatural. Therefore, the impression of the picture is very strange. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
    • @Екатерина Борисова: Hi. I am surprised a bit that "because bushes even on a slope can't grow at that angle, it's completely unnatural". [Here] is approx. point where the photo has been taken. Юрий Д.К. 09:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
      • I'm far more surprised by this panorama :) Looks like a kind of topiary art. But in your other shot made from this point of view the bushes grow straight. I'm not opposing your image, I just don't understand. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 19:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Habitat_shot_of_Coral_red_kukri_(Oligodon_kheriensis)_from_Cooch_Behar,_West_Bengal,_India.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Habitat shot of Coral red kukri (Oligodon kheriensis) from Cooch Behar, West Bengal, India --Herpking 15:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice contrast, colors are bright, QI! --Earth605 18:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose But the head is a bit blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 09:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. --LexKurochkin 09:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. --Lmbuga 15:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 09:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Józef_Mehoffer's_House,_26_Krupnicza_street,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kraków, Dom Józefa MehofferaJa, właściciel praw autorskich do tego dzieła, udostępniam je na poniższej licencjiTa fotografia została przesłana w ramach projektu Wiki Lubi Zabytki będącego częścią inicjatywy Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Igor123121 06:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 14:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness, let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 10:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The photo is sharp enough IMO, but strong perspective (and, possibly, distortion) correction made the two people near left side of the building look rather strange. --LexKurochkin 09:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appears to have lens distortion. Center of building appears to bulge towards viewer a little bit. Roof line is not linear. A bit noisy too. --E bailey 17:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Barrel distortion and also the image is not sharp. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 10:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others: distortion and sharpness. --Augustgeyler 16:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 08:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Street_vendor,_Via_Cesario_Console,_Naples,_Italy_(PPL1-Corrected)_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Street vendor, Via Cesario Console, Naples, Italy (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 18:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Photo is not bad, but I am not convinced. Most of the vendor's goods are covered + lot of vehicles in the background give for me feeling of overload and disharmony, sorry. --Gower 19:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I think that's a great critique. For me though, it's precisely that overload and disharmony that draws me to this picture (it's a personal favourite), as it immediately puts me back in Naples. I also like how the wide angle exaggerates the size of the woman and the bench, making them stand out against the background. Moving to CR in hopes of hearing more more opinions --Julesvernex2 20:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support To me using 19 mm lens for a portrait is not a good idea, especially for so close distance, but, yes, it created some artistic impression form the photo in whole. It is a portrait, the subject is sharp and level of detail is high, so, technically it is good for QI. --LexKurochkin 08:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see the problem. Good quality--Lmbuga 16:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The bench is captured nicely. But as the title tells the intention to show the vendor I think the composition is not able to do so. --Augustgeyler 16:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 07:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

File:معصرة_الزيتون_التقليدية_الفصيلي_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 82-64 in Tunisia.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Majbri wael 19:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Earth605 19:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Plants are too blurred (motion blur ?). --Sebring12Hrs 20:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Harlock81 15:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 16:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Temple_de_Minerve_-_Sbeitla.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Skander zarrad 08:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 08:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Already declined. --Sebring12Hrs 09:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Skander zarrad: The perspective has been corrected in this new version, but the dust spot are still there. I added two notes on the picture. --Harlock81 15:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are minor Dust spots but most importantly the description is missing. --Augustgeyler 16:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 06:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Church_tower_–_Church_of_Our_Saviour,_Copenhagen.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church tower – Church of Our Saviour, Copenhagen. The external staircase turns four times counterclockwise around the spire. --OleNeitzel 23:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 06:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good sharpness, and I will support if the three dust spots will be removed. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 18:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 06:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Southern_pudu_(Pudu_puda)_male_head_Chiloe.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Southern pudu (Pudu puda) male --Charlesjsharp 22:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose weird colors --Gower 11:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 17:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Sorry, I did not notice the first comment from Gower. I think, now I should send it to CR --LexKurochkin 17:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A night flash photo, if I'm not wrong. Good according to me. --Harlock81 15:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment According to the meta data, the flash wasn't used, but it really looks like it was used, though. --Sebring12Hrs 15:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • A spotlight that was already switched on, maybe. --Harlock81 15:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The lower part of the snout is blown out, as is the inner part of the ear, and many hairs (on the neck, for example). IMO. At the very least, highly overexposed. --Lmbuga 16:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 15:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Ksar_Chenini_vue_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gasr CheniniCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 83-20.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Skander zarrad 07:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 16:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not bad, but there are some green CAs. Is it enough for QI ? I would like to hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 18:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA are here but very weak. But there are 2 dust spots on the edges. Would support this photo without them. Overall very good. Юрий Д.К. 20:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)~
  •  Oppose I don't mind the very light CAs but until the dust spots are gone, I have to oppose. --MB-one 15:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:La_mosquee_des_7_dormants_vue_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mosquées Les 7 DormantsCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 83-19.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Skander zarrad 07:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 16:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose May be, the purple fringes need to be removed (on the mosquee). Your pictures are great, but there are some technical issues, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 18:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Fringes are gone now. --MB-one 15:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 15:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Ñus_comunes_(Connochaetes_taurinus),_zona_de_conservación_de_Ngorongoro,_Tanzania,_2024-05-27,_DD_53.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blue wildebeests (Connochaetes taurinus), Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania --Poco a poco 06:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Animals aren't very sharp. --Gower 16:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Sharpened, please, let's discuss. Again, why not asking first for sharpening instead of direct decline? --Poco a poco 22:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell 20:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality now. --Harlock81 15:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 15:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:León_(Panthera_leo),_zona_de_conservación_de_Ngorongoro,_Tanzania,_2024-05-27,_DD_54.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lion (Panthera leo), Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania --Poco a poco 09:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 12:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Sharpened, please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 22:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • The head is sharp now, good job ! I don't know if it's enough to be QI, but I cancel my opposing vote. --Sebring12Hrs 09:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Benjism89 12:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)~
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 13:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Leones_(Panthera_leo),_parque_nacional_de_Tarangire,_Tanzania,_2024-05-25,_DD_66.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lions (Panthera leo), Tarangire National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 09:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not easy to take, but not very sharp to me. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Update follows Poco a poco 07:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Sharpened, please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 22:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it looks goood. --Polinova 19:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Issue fixed Earth605 06:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Earth605 06:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Withered_jacaranda_(Jacaranda_mimosifolia)_flowers_on_a_car's_hood,_Avenida_Miguel_Bombarda,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Withered jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) flowers on a car's hood, Avenida Miguel Bombarda, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 12:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 14:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Random composition imo --Cvmontuy 16:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I was going for messy, rather than random. Jacarandá flowers are beautiful but they make a mess of things when they fall: sticky sidewalks and cars, and an odd smell. I tried to capture that messiness by putting the main subject (the lump of withered flowers in focus) off-center, with fewer and softer flowers all around to guide the viewer's eye --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too shallow DoF--Gower 17:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Not everything in a photo needs to be in focus. A shallower depth of field is a useful tool to emphasise the subject --Julesvernex2 20:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • of course, but here we have almost flat (parabolic?) surface with similar things --Gower 20:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I totally get the composition Earth605 06:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MB-one 15:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I see the point of having a small DoF to add some depth. But here we have a more or less plain subject and a deeper DoF would have been beneficial to show all parts of these flowers. Additionally a larger DoF would not have compromissed the idea of capturing the "messiness". --Augustgeyler 16:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Earth605 06:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Prinzipalmarkt_--_2025_--_9886.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the row of houses on Prinzipalmarkt (approximately house numbers 32 to 38), Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Interesting, but only center is in fact sharp. --Gower 13:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • This is inevitable given the length of the row of houses. With a wider aperture, the photo would generally be blurrier, even if the depth of field increases. Here, the central area is sharp, but the houses further in front and behind are still sufficiently sharp. --XRay 05:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cvmontuy 10:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MB-one (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 15:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Kasr_Béni_Kheddache_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kasr Béni KheddacheCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 82-68.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Cheima fezzani 23:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 20:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Buildings are leaning too much to me. --Sebring12Hrs 02:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs--Gower 17:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I think they built the buildings like that. You don't deny an image of the tower of Pisa Earth605 06:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Earth605 06:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Woman_sitting_on_the_grass,_Palácio_das_Galveias,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Woman sitting on the grass, Palácio das Galveias, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 15:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose too blurry --Gower 16:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info The old Fuji S5 Pro produces interpolated images that are not bitingly sharp as those from modern cameras, but they are certainly not blurry. --Julesvernex2 17:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info In other words: not sharp enough --Gower 19:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Sure, I wasn't trying to be a sticker for accurate technical terms: I understand what you mean, I just don't agree with it :) --Julesvernex2 19:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture and sharp enough. --Plozessor 16:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor. --Harlock81 15:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --MB-one 15:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 02 Nov → Mon 10 Nov
  • Mon 03 Nov → Tue 11 Nov
  • Tue 04 Nov → Wed 12 Nov
  • Wed 05 Nov → Thu 13 Nov
  • Thu 06 Nov → Fri 14 Nov
  • Fri 07 Nov → Sat 15 Nov
  • Sat 08 Nov → Sun 16 Nov
  • Sun 09 Nov → Mon 17 Nov
  • Mon 10 Nov → Tue 18 Nov