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 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 January 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 January 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 January 13 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]] 21:35, 13 January 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).


January 13, 2026

[edit]

January 12, 2026

[edit]

January 11, 2026

[edit]

January 10, 2026

[edit]

January 9, 2026

[edit]

January 8, 2026

[edit]

January 7, 2026

[edit]

January 6, 2026

[edit]

January 5, 2026

[edit]

January 4, 2026

[edit]

January 3, 2026

[edit]

January 2, 2026

[edit]

January 1, 2026

[edit]

December 30, 2025

[edit]

December 29, 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:Krakow_2024_543_MNK_Ciołek_Palace_-_Madonna_%26_Child_Icon.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Madonna & Child Icon at Ciołek Palace --Scotch Mist 07:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose The bottom is not sharp and blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 09:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Other opinions? --Scotch Mist 22:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_571_Archaeological_Museum_-_Casimir_IV_Death.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination King Casimir IV Jagiellon Death Sculpture --Scotch Mist 07:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 07:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose The top is overexposed, sorry. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 09:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Hamburg,_St._Michaelis_--_2025_--_2853.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Michael’s Church (main church), Hamburg, Germany --XRay 06:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too distroted IMO.The right is falling, the left is straight... --Sebring12Hrs 08:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's certainly true. However, the photo looks very strange when the vertical lines are perpendicular. To prevent this unfavorable effect, you would have to move further away from the church, which is not possible in the city. In my opinion, the chosen representation is both sensible and QI-compatible. --XRay 14:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Building,_3_Piotra_Stachiewicza_Street._Prądnik_Biały,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Building, 3 Piotra Stachiewicza street, Prądnik Biały, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 05:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image needs a propper (existing or created) category. --Augustgeyler 01:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
    @Augustgeyler: I’ve fixed the issue and added the category. However, I truly don't understand why you moved the photo to the discussion section. It would have been enough to leave it in the nominations and tag me; I would have corrected it then. I believe moving it to discussion solely due to a missing category was unnecessary. Best regards. --Igor123121 18:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Piotra_Stachiewicza_street,_view_to_N,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Piotra Stachiewicza street, view to N, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 05:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is missing a propper existing category. --Augustgeyler 01:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
    @Augustgeyler: I’ve fixed the issue and added the category. However, I truly don't understand why you moved the photo to the discussion section. It would have been enough to leave it in the nominations and tag me; I would have corrected it then. I believe moving it to discussion solely due to a missing category was unnecessary. Best regards. --Igor123121 18:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Venice,_Italy_(2025)_-_001.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Venezia Santa Lucia train station, Italy --Another Believer 02:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the level of detail is too low here. --Augustgeyler 01:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_484_MNK_Ciołek_Palace_-_Saint_Stanislaus_Portrait.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Stanisław portrait painting --Scotch Mist 07:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rohit14400 08:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Highlights at the top is to disturbing. I'm really sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs Jakubhal 06:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_514_MNK_Ciołek_Palace_-_Ignacy_Morawski_Portrait.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ignacy Morawski portrait painting --Scotch Mist 07:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 07:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much Highlights, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_518_MNK_Ciołek_Palace.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Michał Serwacy Wiśniowiecki & Jerzy Radziwiłł Tableau (2 panels of 10 --Scotch Mist 07:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Bad framing/crop and reflected light is problematic. --Sebring12Hrs 11:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Other opinions? --Scotch Mist 22:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_394_Wawel_Castle_Museum_-_Opportunity_Allegory.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 'Allegory of Opportunity' framed painting --Scotch Mist 07:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The frame is bending at the top. --Sebring12Hrs 11:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Other opinions? --Scotch Mist 22:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
[edit]

  • Nomination Framed 'Painter's Inspiration' by Jacek Malczewski --Scotch Mist 07:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose It lacks sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 13:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Respectfully disagree - other opinions? --Scotch Mist 07:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_262_Krzysztofory_Palace_-_Cloth_Hall_Mascaron.jpg_

[edit]

  • Nomination Mascaron from Cloth Hall (Sukiennice) --Scotch Mist 08:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 15:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit too blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 11:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:07, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Greater_flamingos_(Phoenicopterus_roseus)_and_other_birds_on_the_silt_at_sunrise,_Parque_Papa_Francisco,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2-3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Greater flamingos (Phoenicopterus roseus) and other birds on the silt at sunrise, Parque Papa Francisco, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 11:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp. --Scotch Mist 12:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • The flamingo couple, the main subject, is sharp. It is not oversharpened, like is often the case for bird shots, but pixel peeping this ~50MP image at 100% shows plenty of detail --Julesvernex2 12:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Julesvernex2: Am sorry, although the flamingos are visible here in a nice silhouette the overall image does not appear sharp (irrespective of the number of pixels). --Scotch Mist 11:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I think selective focus is a useful technique here. These three images follow the same recipe: subject in focus, a bit of blurry foreground to lead the viewer towards the subject, and a lot of blurry background for depth and context (showing the sun rise over the water and the city on the other side of the river) --Julesvernex2 13:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice seascape Юрий Д.К. 12:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good (but extreme) composition. Birds are in focus. --Augustgeyler 01:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Julesvernex2 13:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Greater_flamingos_(Phoenicopterus_roseus)_and_other_birds_on_the_silt_at_sunrise,_Parque_Papa_Francisco,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Greater flamingos (Phoenicopterus roseus) and other birds on the silt at sunrise, Parque Papa Francisco, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 16:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Espandero 16:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred. --Scotch Mist 11:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • The main subject, the flamingos, is sharp. It is not oversharpened, like is often the case for bird shots, but pixel peeping this ~50MP image at 100% shows plenty of detail --Julesvernex2 12:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Julesvernex2: Am sorry but the flamingos are barely visible within an overall image most of which does not appear sharp irrespective of the number of pixels. --Scotch Mist 11:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I think selective focus is a useful technique here. These three images follow the same recipe: subject in focus ("barely visible" is a bit of an hyperbole?), a bit of blurry foreground to lead the viewer towards the subject, and a lot of blurry background for depth and context (showing the sun rise over the water and the city on the other side of the river) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 17:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Greater_flamingos_(Phoenicopterus_roseus)_and_other_birds_on_the_silt_at_sunrise,_Parque_Papa_Francisco,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Greater flamingos (Phoenicopterus roseus) and other birds on the silt at sunrise, Parque Papa Francisco, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 16:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Espandero 16:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred. --Scotch Mist 11:11, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • The main subject, the flamingos, is sharp. It is not oversharpened, like is often the case for bird shots, but pixel peeping this ~50MP image at 100% shows plenty of detail --Julesvernex2 12:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Julesvernex2: Am sorry but the flamingos are barely visible within an overall image most of which does not appear sharp irrespective of the number of pixels. --Scotch Mist 11:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I think selective focus is a useful technique here. These three images follow the same recipe: subject in focus ("barely visible" is a bit of an hyperbole?), a bit of blurry foreground to lead the viewer towards the subject, and a lot of blurry background for depth and context (showing the sun rise over the water and the city on the other side of the river) --Julesvernex2 13:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Harlock81 17:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Wiadukt_kolejowy_w_Lewinie_Kłodzkim_(11).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Overpass in Lewin Kłodzki 1 --Jacek Halicki 01:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 02:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Purple CA in the upper left part (between the forest and the sky). --Plozessor 04:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Chorzów_Siemianowicka_46_attic_2020.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chorzów, Siemianowicka 46, attic --Gower 19:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Overexposed --Jacek Halicki 20:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
    It's not overexposed, rather underexposed --Gower 05:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    the window is burned out.--Jacek Halicki 14:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2020_Kłodzko,_ul._Hirschfeldera_2_(7).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hirszfeldera Street in Kłodzko by User:Jacek HalickiBoston9 20:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --~~~~
     Oppose Image is good, but unsigned support is not. I'm ready to remove my opposing vote if the situation clears up. --Екатерина Борисова 04:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 23:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 13:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Now it's supported by known users, so I remove my opposing vote. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Giles Laurent 20:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2020_Kłodzko,_ul._Hirschfeldera_2_(8).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Ścinawka_Średnia,_zespół_pałacu_jezuitów_(1).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Ski_slopes_between_Tête_de_Bellard_and_Le_Grand_Truc,_La_Toussuire,_2023.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ski slopes, La Toussuire. --DimiTalen 09:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 09:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO it's not sharp enough, and I don't understand these white dots in the foreground (reflections of the sun in snow crystals?). Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 01:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for reviewing! The white dots are reflections of snow cristals, indeed. I can understand if sharpness isn't up to par. --DimiTalen 06:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is a very nice picture, but a bit too unsharp to deserve the QI stamp. I wonder what is the reason for the unsharpness: overall out of focus? -- Alvesgaspar 16:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 17:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_136_National_Museum_Modern_Art_-_Stańczyk.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stańczyk Painting by Leon Wyczółkowski --Scotch Mist 06:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Good quality, but could you add the frame and some surrounding space back? --Mike Peel 14:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Mike Peel: Thanks for review but my understanding of QI guidelines is that unless the frame has significance it is often better cropped so as not to distract from the artwork/detail. --Scotch Mist 10:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I can't spot that guideline? Closest I can see is "The subject should not be cropped, unless it is only a specific part of the subject that is of interest." - but how it's displayed is also of interest. I'm happy to leave this for another reviewer if you'd prefer though. Thanks. Mike Peel 20:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info Moving to discuss to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
     Comment The painting may be displayed also without the frame, imho. The problem here is that the frame was slightly distorted in the original picture, and we do not know if that distortion was real (due to the age), or if it was a result of the photographic tecnique. In this last case, the painting itself may show some distortion that we are not able to catch (or to exclude) without a comparison. Scotch Mist, may you please give us a link to a page on the website of the museum about the painting? --Harlock81 09:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Thank you for your comment - the following is the link to the gallery picture (without frame) presumably taken under optimum photographic conditions: MNK Stańczyk. --Scotch Mist 12:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for offering us an image to which compare your picture. Imho, the colours are a bit washed out. This effect is unavoidable, since it is due to the light system of the museum. It is anyhow a pity, because it spoils the result. --Harlock81 14:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't understand. Is it suggested here that part of the painting was cropped together with the frame? For the moment, I will suport promotion. -- Alvesgaspar 16:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Alvesgaspar: Thanks for your review - in response to your question the first reviewer preferred to see the frame but my comment, as some justification for showing the canvas only (besides the frame being very plain and of little interest), was that the museum gallery image also did not show the frame (only the painted canvas)! --Scotch Mist 21:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpnes sis borderline. Better without frame, but the middle top is blurred. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Although this painting image is certainly not beyond criticism, it sadly appears that since I opposed several images supported by you where more than fifty percent of those images appeared blurred, and the subject in focus only represented a tiny proportion of the overall image, you have decided to oppose most of my recent nominations, often for relatively minor reasons ("QI" is not an acronym for "Perfect Image") or on the most tenuous of bases (even after some had already been rated "good quality" by others). This is regrettable because not only are you discouraging me from nominating any more images for QI, you are probably discouraging others from nominating their images, especially gallery images that may be unique and obtained under challenging circumstances. Perhaps it is not surprising that there are relatively few gallery paintings (with often 'unhelpful' gallery lighting) nominated for QI, particularly if some users are content to sustain this disappointing situation (persistently opposing nominations, rather than encouraging better photos/images through constructive comments, is not helpful)! --Scotch Mist 14:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's enough, many people vote against your photos of paintings which are far from unanimous. My goal is only that the Commons galleries don't become anything with photos that don't look up to par. Yes, photos of interiors and in museums are difficult to take, but that's not a reason to say "ok" systematically. stop saying it's my fault and that I discourage users from submitting images just because I vote against yours. You know what? You are inciting yourself to provoke fear that people should vote “for” your photos. I can say the same thing. --Sebring12Hrs 15:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 11:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_138_National_Museum_Modern_Art_-_Blessing_Food.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blessing Food at Easter by Włodzimierz Tetmajer --Scotch Mist 06:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Good quality, but can you recover some space around the frame, please? Otherwise it's difficult to know if it's been cut off or not. --Mike Peel 14:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Mike Peel: There is relevance, although minor, of this ornate frame to the artwork but revealing the light background to the frame would distract from the artwork itself, IMHO! --Scotch Mist 09:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info Moving to discuss to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline sharpness at the edges and the crop should be better. --Sebring12Hrs 16:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: In your opinion should the frame be cropped completely? --Scotch Mist 19:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment The frame is cut. For me, either we make everything appear, or it's just the canvas. In addition, there is barrel distorsion, this issue is also revelant. --Sebring12Hrs
  • ✓ Done Have corrected for minor barrel distortion and restored complete frame with minimal background wall.--Scotch Mist 09:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't see any serious problem with this picture. -- Alvesgaspar 16:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support with the new crop. Thanks. Mike Peel 10:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Mike Peel (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Retoryka_street,_view_to_S,_bird's_eye_view_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Retoryka street, view to S, bird's eye view 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 16:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment I feel like there's strong PC left and right. The buildings and cars look distorted. --Espandero 09:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I don't see a strong PC here. --Sebring12Hrs 17:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Espandero. Especially the cars on the right are distorted. --Augustgeyler 02:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Once again, the result of uncritical use of geometric correction -- Alvesgaspar 18:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 19:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_286_Krzysztofory_Palace_-_1848_Uprising.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 1848 Uprising Funeral Painting by Władysław Majeranowski --Scotch Mist 07:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 08:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Barrel distorsion, please discuss, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 19:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Am not sure of evidence of "barrel distortion" - the relatively poor condition of the old frame should be noted along with the apparent warping (see upper portions of painting edges revealed on both sides) - perhaps rather than manipulate the painting itself the otherwise uninteresting frame should be cropped altogether? --Scotch Mist 10:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment RawTherapee manages to correct the problem with ‘Lens correction profile’. JackyM59 17:40, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @JackyM59: Thank you for your review and for your advice - am still awaiting a reply to my earlier comment from Sebring12Hrs, who has opposed promotion of numerous paintings I have nominated or supported, on whether distortion correction or cropping is preferred in this instance? --Scotch Mist 07:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't know what to tell you, my English isn't great. I find that these photos lack detail; the outlines of the picture frames seem very denoised on Mike Peel's pictures, and there's also distortion on this one. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Thank you for your frank feedback - in your opinion should this image be cropped (removing the simple frame altogether) or should a correction of "barrel distortion" be attempted? --Scotch Mist 18:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Francisca_Tatchouop_Belob.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vice-président de la commission de la CEEAC. By Francisca Tatchouop Belob --Aboubacarkhoraa 19:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tobias ToMar Maier 19:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose for now. Is this really own work? The uploader has the same name as the depicted person and cross-wiki upload of this image seems to be the only visible activity of the uploader. There are two edits not displayed in the contribution list on the French Wikipedia. Who took this photo? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Ornithogalum_nutans_MHNT.BOT.2016.24.43.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination fruit of drooping star-of-Bethlehem – Fruit de Ornithogale penché --Ercé 09:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 10:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and lacking detail in subject. I cannot tell if these objects have smooth, rough, ridged or other type of surface. A still and composed studio shot like this should be really sharp and provide those details IMO. --E bailey 14:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with the opposer . -- Alvesgaspar 16:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 17:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2025-01-12_IBU_World_Cup_Biathlon_Oberhof_2025_STP_5992.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination IBU World Cup Biathlon Oberhof 2025: Maria Remenova (SVK) --Stepro 03:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Face not sharp enough, sorry --Gower 15:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the face is sharp. I can count the dots on the tongue and even see the eyes clearly through the sunglasses. --Stepro 17:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Smial 12:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with the opposer. Slightly out of focus? -- Alvesgaspar 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 17:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Walerego Eljasza-Radzikowskiego street, view to W, Kraków, Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Walerego Eljasza-Radzikowskiego Street, view to W, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 09:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Shadows are very dark. Light balance could be improved. --E bailey 23:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info This nomination should not be at CR. There is no comment about any disagreement so far. --Augustgeyler 09:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
    • That was my mistake. Meant to select 'comment'. What next? --E bailey 14:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @E bailey: , ✓ Done --Igor123121 16:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Since it is here now we gave max. 8 days to discuss it or react to changes made by the nominator. --August (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Weak support; the thumbnail looks bad because of the light, but when looking at the full resolution, it's sharp and seems to have a correct white balance. I think it's just that the light was a bit unfortunate that day.--Peulle 08:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting indeed. And the white balance is off, with a strong predominace of blue. Alvesgaspar 16:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 17:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Forges_de_Varenne_-_Haut-fourneau.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Forges de Varenne - Haut-fourneau --JackyM59 09:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction. --DimiTalen 09:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Perspective correction made. --JackyM59 10:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks. But even so, the walls on the right are still not straight. --DimiTalen 11:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I see, the walls are tilted? In that case, I would go for a different crop here. --DimiTalen 12:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Could you please try again, this time with the original image? That is, before the blind application of geometric correction? -- Alvesgaspar 18:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have restored the original file. JackyM59 07:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I was wrong, sorry! -- Alvesgaspar 11:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good Quality.--Ermell 21:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Comparison with this image reveals at least the main tower has two vertical walls. So the image must be distorted. --Augustgeyler 01:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not bad for a smartphone picture, but per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 01:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 21:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Wolnica_Square,_aerial_view_from_the_north_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wolnica Square, aerial view from the north 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 08:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very dull light, underexposed, a bit too soft. These series of yours aerial views are undoubtedly useful, but simply look not good enough to be QI, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:08, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Out of focus, in my opinion. -- Alvesgaspar 16:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 17:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Corpus_Christi_Church,_26_Bożego_Ciała_Street,_bird's_eye_view_2025,_Kazimierz,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Corpus Christi Church, 26 Bożego Ciała Street, bird's eye view 2025, Kazimierz, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 08:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Very dull light, underexposed, a bit too soft. These series of yours aerial views are undoubtedly useful, but simply look not good enough to be QI, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Neutral for now. The one thing I don't like is the distortion caused by geometric corrections on the cars. -- Alvesgaspar 16:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Wolnica_Square,_southern_frontage,_aerial_view_2025,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wolnica Square, southern frontage, aerial view 2025, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 08:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very dull light, underexposed, a bit too soft. These series of yours aerial views are undoubtedly useful, but simply look not good enough to be QI, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite unsharp, like the sister image above. -- Alvesgaspar 16:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 17:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:At_Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_2025_025_-_The_Hay_Field_by_Thomas_Armstrong.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Hay Field by Thomas Armstrong at the V&A, London --Mike Peel 13:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp, too soft. Too much noise reduction ? --Sebring12Hrs 16:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Disagree - text on frame indicates sharpness - although would have reduced or completely cropped the distracting light wall surrounding the frame, IMO image is good quality so have supported QI and proposed for discussion. --Scotch Mist 11:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough quality. Besides, I like the Pre-Raphaelites... -- Alvesgaspar 18:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. Frame is sharp but painting is too soft even with high resolution. I love Pre-Raphaelites too, but it doesn't matter. --Gower 07:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Am concerned that paintings are being declined/opposed for QI as "soft", "not sharp" and even "blurred" without an appreciation of the challenges in taking 'good quality' photographs of paintings in a public gallery with fixed/angled lighting. Unlike outdoors where lighting is generally softer and more even across a given subject but varies overall during the course of the day (which can be exploited to advantage), gallery lighting is often more focused in certain areas and unavoidable (unless switched off by gallery staff who can produce images for gallery publications under more desirable lighting conditions). Tripods are often not practical when acceptable and lower ISO's make images more susceptible to 'motion blur'. Therefore, without professional photography arrangements some compromise is generally required which involves attempting to use the often more intense lighting of a gallery in a way that enhances the focus of 'light' in an artist's painting (or sculpture) or at least minimizing detrimental effects (including adverse reflections) on the rest of the painting, or preferentially the frame of the painting (which can be cropped if desirable especially if the frame itself is not of significant interest). It seems a pity if such compromises are not appreciated by QI reviewers (who may not take many photos of paintings in galleries themselves) and contributions of images of paintings to wikimedia from "amateur photographers" are thus discouraged. --Scotch Mist 17:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Gower 07:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Mon 05 Jan → Tue 13 Jan
  • Tue 06 Jan → Wed 14 Jan
  • Wed 07 Jan → Thu 15 Jan
  • Thu 08 Jan → Fri 16 Jan
  • Fri 09 Jan → Sat 17 Jan
  • Sat 10 Jan → Sun 18 Jan
  • Sun 11 Jan → Mon 19 Jan
  • Mon 12 Jan → Tue 20 Jan
  • Tue 13 Jan → Wed 21 Jan