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 04 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]] 10:59, 4 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 4, 2026

[edit]

February 3, 2026

[edit]

February 2, 2026

[edit]

February 1, 2026

[edit]

January 31, 2026

[edit]

January 30, 2026

[edit]

January 29, 2026

[edit]

January 28, 2026

[edit]

January 27, 2026

[edit]

January 26, 2026

[edit]

January 25, 2026

[edit]

January 24, 2026

[edit]

January 23, 2026

[edit]

January 22, 2026

[edit]

January 21, 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:2024_Radków,_pl._Rynek_21_(1).jpg

[edit]

File:2024_Radków,_pl._Rynek_20_(1).jpg

[edit]

File:Tjeckoslovakiens_ambassad_January_2026_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Brutalist building in Stockholm. --ArildV 12:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Crop is heavy on the top, while the bottom is cut off a bit. Also Perspective distortion. --Aciarium 15:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with the laconic "perspective distortion" statement here. It is a tradional worm's-eye view, taken close to the building to avoid disturbing objects (signs, cars, trees) and focusing on the facad. Enough space above the building imo. --ArildV 16:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Sorry, my first comment was misleading. What I meant regarding composition: It is quite top-heavy (and I wouldn't reduce the space between the building's top and the edge). However, the crop at the bottom is quite strong, cutting off some stairs. This is why I think it looks unbalanced. --Aciarium 17:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for you review and thoughtful comments. I uploaded a new version. --ArildV 16:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Thank you for the improvement, the crop is much better now! However, I am still having a hard time regarding the perspective: There are photos where the chosen composition underlines that the worm's eye view is intentional (example). In your case, the photographer was too distant from the subject for the worm's eye view to be recognizable as stylistic device, but perspective correction would improve the picture significantly without too much distortion IMO, so I have to oppose. --Aciarium 11:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Moved to discussion, I am curious about other opinions on this. --Aciarium 11:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment How did this get to CR? Please do not move anything to CR that does not have a vote with which you disagree. I added the count and the heading. -- Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  • @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Thank you. I have occasionally seen that nominations were moved to CR after just one (opposing) vote, when the voter was uncertain whether their opposition was valid critique or personal taste. --Aciarium 16:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment This was wrong. If I see something like this, then I revert the status to the appropriate entry. However, this would be a little tricky here because you moved the image to the CR section manually, something which must not be done either. The rule says clearly "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." In addition, there is the following rule on Commons:Quality_images_candidates: "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." --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop. Let the poor thing breathe! I also don't like the disturbing shadow. Finally, I disagree that perpective correction should be apllied. -- Alvesgaspar 23:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:San_Salvatore_in_Ognissanti_Florence_November_2022-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Crucifix of Ognissanti, in the church of San Salvatore, Florence. Attributed to Giotto, ca. 1315. -- Alvesgaspar 15:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 18:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The background seems distorted, let's hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 23:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  • weak  Support somewhat soft, but still acceptable. --Smial 09:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Ratusz_w_Radkowie_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Town hall in Radków 1 --Jacek Halicki 07:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Already nominated and promoted at February 1. --Екатерина Борисова 00:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina. --Aciarium 11:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Aciarium 11:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Ratusz_w_Radkowie_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Town hall in Radków 2 --Jacek Halicki 07:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 08:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Already nominated and promoted at February 1. --Екатерина Борисова 00:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina. --Aciarium 11:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Aciarium 11:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Ratusz_w_Radkowie_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Town hall in Radków 3 --Jacek Halicki 07:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Already nominated and promoted at February 1. --Екатерина Борисова 00:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina. --Aciarium 11:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Aciarium 11:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Kościół_św._Doroty_w_Radkowie_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Dorothy church in Radków --Jacek Halicki 07:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Already nominated and promoted at February 1. --Екатерина Борисова 00:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina. --Aciarium 11:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Aciarium 11:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Hamburg,_St._Michaelis,_Südportal_--_2025_--_2857.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination South portal of St. Michael’s Church, Hamburg, Germany --XRay 06:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The top is unsharp, sorry --Benjism89 07:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I made some improvements at the top. IMO better. --XRay 10:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Better but not sharp enough IMO. Let's see what others think --Benjism89 18:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Benjism89. --Sebring12Hrs 04:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Kraków_ul._Loretańska_11_Kościół_Zwiastowania_NMP_kaplica_witraż.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 09:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Korczmin,_cerkiew.jpg

[edit]

  • ✓ Done @Aciarum, new version uploaded, how it looks now? --Gower 18:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I think the LOD in the trees could be better, but anyway good quality. --Aciarium 10:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but the last version is too soft, we lost details. --Sebring12Hrs 14:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info Go to CR. --Sebring12Hrs 14:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Dernekamp,_Seifenblase_--_2026_--_082108.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Frozen soap bubble in front of the Visbeck house, Dernekamp, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lovely but  Level of detail too low --Gower 12:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I made some improvements. Hopefully good enough - for a photo taken with a phone. --XRay 10:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Петуния_на_бульваре_Новаторов_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Petunia in Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Petals not sufficiently sharp --Gower 18:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Not ideal, but still QI for me. --Юрий Д.К. 19:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Gower. For an easy shot like this, more sharpness should be required.. -- Alvesgaspar 23:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Waasenstraße_2,_4_Leoben_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The residential buildings Waasenstraße 4 (left) and 2 (right, serving as a student residence), Leoben. On the rope, an artistic depiction of a miner and the miner's greeting "Glückauf". --Aciarium 00:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 01:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Temporarily oppose. I talked to the author some time ago about this photo. There was a disturbing piece of a car sticking in the bottom. Author made a crop, but small piece of car still remained. He said that he did not have the technical ability to retouch this piece. Since the photo is generally good, I hope that someone can help the author solve this issue. I'm not really voting against this image, but rather want to attract attention to it. --Екатерина Борисова 03:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Екатерина Борисова:  Doing… I am sorry, there was a misunderstanding on my side. From your comments on the original nomination, I had not understood that the remaining part of the motorcycle at the bottom was still an issue. Since that remaining part is rather small, I will be able to fix it today! --Aciarium 12:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Екатерина Борисова: ✓ Done --Aciarium 16:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you. Trash cans etc. are not an issue in my eyes. Streets are always full of different things, but here they're not spoil the image since the main objects are not obscured. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Several disturbing elements spoiling the composition, such as the car on the right, the trash cans on the left, and part of an handrail on the foreground right. -- Alvesgaspar 16:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Perhaps a little too aggressive noise reduction due to the unnecessarily high ISO setting. This also means that some of the camera sensor's ability to record a high contrast range is wasted. Although this is a minor complaint with current camera models, when it really matters, details in the highlights or in very dark areas of the image may be lost. --Smial 13:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 00:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:2026_China_Day_celebration_during_the_32nd_Consumer_Fair_&_Trade_Expo_-_18.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Khairuddin Abdul Hamid at the 2026 China Day celebration. --Pangalau 15:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 16:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too soft face, look at the eyes --Gower 22:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Gower. --Aciarium 16:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. Good enough regarding the resolution. The glasses appear to have a fairly high diopter value. --Smial 13:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 04:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 00:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:IMG5087_Aerial_View_Zentralkrankenhaus_Bozen_2015.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of the Bolzano Central Hospital and surrounding areas in 2015. The New Clinic is being constructed. --Aciarium 08:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose A complex of troubles: wrong WB (too yellow), low contrast, unsharp --George Chernilevsky 15:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @George Chernilevsky: Understandable. Would this be promotable if I improved the contrast and white balance? I think the lack of sharpness is not mitigable. --Aciarium 10:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I tried to improve WB, contrast and a bit the sharpness. --Aciarium 17:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Thanks, it's much better now, but still blurry. For shooting conditions like these, you need a UV filter next time. -- George Chernilevsky 09:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
    @George Chernilevsky: Thank you for your advice! Due to the blur I would very much understand an opposal. Maybe I will have the chance to re-shoot the subject sometime - the lens I took this photo with is not really high-quality, but quite the opposite. --Aciarium 12:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info There is an opposing vote, but Aciarium canceled it with his comment, instead of sending the image to discussion section. --Екатерина Борисова 04:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Екатерина Борисова: Sorry! How can I avoid this in the future? --Aciarium 12:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
     Comment You can read the rules once again :) There'are some explanations for this case. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too unsharp and per George Chernilevsky. --Sebring12Hrs 17:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Not too bad. UV filters have not only become pretty much redundant in reasonably modern lenses with five or more multi-coated elements, i.e. since the 1980s at the latest, but also carry the risk of significantly reducing image sharpness, especially at long telephoto focal lengths. So unless you want to protect your beloved lens from saltwater spray or sandstorms, I consider their use to be counterproductive. --Smial 14:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 00:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:20190609_Hauptbahnhof_Braunschweig_brutalism_DSC08416_PtrQs.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Main station of Brunswick, Lower-Saxony, Germany. By User:PtrQs --Augustgeyler 12:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pudelek 12:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose White balance is off - too warm. Lacks contrast. CA noticeable purple fringing where building meets sky. --E bailey 13:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
    Implicit oppose. --Benjism89 11:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO, contrast and color grading (I don't think that WB is responsible for this warm tone) are a matter of taste. I would say the technical quality is fine. Could not find any CA. --Aciarium 15:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info Since there's a discussion, it should go to discussion section. --Екатерина Борисова 03:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Aciarium --Benjism89 11:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see any CAs here, otherwise good quality and clearly QI.--ArildV 09:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support It looks like it was shot through an 81A filter, which I consider to be a matter of taste rather than color distortion. Very nice composition; the small areas of overexposure are not serious flaws. --Smial 15:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 00:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Pez_trompeta_chino_(Aulostomus_chinensis),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-25,_DD_43.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chinese trumpetfish (Aulostomus chinensis), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 08:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. You have some wonderful underwater photography recently, but this one has a few issues. The subject here is not as sharp and there is a lot of noise in the background. Also strong blue/magenta cast in the shadows. --E bailey 13:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  SupportnGood quality. --Igor123121 18:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above -- Alvesgaspar 16:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per E bailey, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 00:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I made some improvements, denoising, curves. sharpening,...what do you think? Poco a poco 09:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 13:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

File:DSC01151_Jeep_Renegade_Esercito_Italiano,_Front.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jeep Renegade of the Esercito Italiano (Italian Army) --Aciarium 07:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong distortion, correction needed --George Chernilevsky 09:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good use of wide-angle perspective. --August (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per George. --Smial 15:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:DSC01004Škoda_Superb_Combi,_Polizia_di_Stato,_Italian-German_Livery,_Rear_Right.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Škoda Superb Combi of the Italian Polizia di Stato (national police). Since it is in service in the autonomous province of Bolzano, it has a bilingual livery (German in addition to Italian). --Aciarium 07:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted, look unnatural --George Chernilevsky 09:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 13:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Fricka,_cerkiew_(HB7).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2025_-_Prechistenskaya_Embankment,_Shelter_for_children's_labor_cooperatives.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2025 - Prechistenskaya Embankment, Shelter for children's labor cooperatives --Юрий Д.К. 00:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Overall good, but somehow distorted a bit (похоже, это был снимок под углом. но вы его выпрямили, поэтому здания стоят прямо, а вот набережная кривая, посмотрите на отверстие справа. Хорошо бы это как-то отрегулировать) --Екатерина Борисова 03:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info Ok. I request more opinions what wrong with the image --Юрий Д.К. 05:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info This image should not be in CR section. Please do not move anything to CR if there is not a vote with which you disagree. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:678A012_Schild_beim_ehemaligen_Kalksteinbruch_bei_Weyer.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Warning sign at the former limestone quarry near Weyer (Gochsheim) --Plozessor 04:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Greens look unnatural, the position of the sign is off in the composition --Aciarium 12:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. --Plozessor 13:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Absolutely ok to me, very good picture and colors, well exposed.... --Sebring12Hrs 17:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose seems overprocessed. Lots of UFOs in the sky, and some weird patterns. --Smial 17:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok for me. Flying objects in the sky are likely insects Юрий Д.К. 06:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Yes, it was a day with masses of insects. --Plozessor 11:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks o. k. to me. Could not find any patterns.--Ermell 15:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The main subject, the tree, is cropped. -- Alvesgaspar 17:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 27 Jan → Wed 04 Feb
  • Wed 28 Jan → Thu 05 Feb
  • Thu 29 Jan → Fri 06 Feb
  • Fri 30 Jan → Sat 07 Feb
  • Sat 31 Jan → Sun 08 Feb
  • Sun 01 Feb → Mon 09 Feb
  • Mon 02 Feb → Tue 10 Feb
  • Tue 03 Feb → Wed 11 Feb
  • Wed 04 Feb → Thu 12 Feb