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]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. 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 September 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 September 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 September 08 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]] 13:10, 8 September 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).


September 8, 2026

[edit]

September 7, 2026

[edit]

September 6, 2026

[edit]

September 5, 2026

[edit]

September 4, 2026

[edit]

September 3, 2026

[edit]

September 2, 2026

[edit]

September 1, 2026

[edit]

August 31, 2026

[edit]

August 30, 2026

[edit]

August 29, 2026

[edit]

August 28, 2026

[edit]

August 26, 2026

[edit]

August 24, 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 and author'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:Musée_d'Histoire_Naturelle_du_Havre_146.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Crocuta crocuta in the Muséum d'histoire naturelle du Havre --Ed.histoire 16:02, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Poor DoF IMO, sorry --Lmbuga 20:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
     Support I think this DOF is quite appropriate here. --Vsatinet 21:53, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Vsatinet 08:02, 8 September 2026 (UTC)reply

File:Hoodoos_and_distant_snow-covered_peaks_from_Agua_Canyon_Overlook,_Bryce_Canyon_National_Park,_Utah.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cliffs and hoodoos under fresh spring snow, seen from the Agua Canyon Overlook, with snow-covered peaks on the horizon. Panorama stitched from several source photographs. --Espandero 05:03, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 05:11, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
     SupportGood quality. The world doesn’t look like that. I would never have a fake photo in my living room --Lmbuga 05:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose If this is a AI composite from various different shots, rather than a regular stitched panorama, then it shouldn't be QI --Charlesjsharp 09:34, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
    Charlesjsharp: I don't understand Lmbuga's comment and I'm not sure I appreciate "The world doesn't look like that" being added to my nom text. This is a stitched panorama made in Lightroom, using two separate photos. --Espandero 10:51, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Unfortunately, reality is not what we want it to be, nor is it what we make of it --Lmbuga 12:05, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
    Muy bonita, pero me parece irreal y sobreprocesada, al menos, sobresaturada. Tu sabes bien que la realidad no es la que nos presentas --Lmbuga 12:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. Having voted in favour of so many dubious photos, this one – which is a great photo – … --Lmbuga 12:45, 7 September 2026 (UTC)  Support Good panorama. The pano-template should be added. --Milseburg 14:17, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. Per others users Lmbuga
     Info Since there're support and oppose votes it should go to CR section. --Екатерина Борисова 01:56, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
     Support The very first image for Agua Canyon on Tripadvisor is this same view (in significantly lower quality, but...). I'm not sure what is being flagged as potentially AI.Crisco 1492 10:54, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Bee_Top_Red_Vein_Indian_Mallow_Flower_Ooty_Sep26_OM3_0925.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Honey bee (top view) on Red vein Indian mallow (Callianthe picta) flower, Bandishola, Ooty --Tagooty 00:45, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose All the serie is very noisy, but this one especially, plus blurred bee. Sorry. --Lvova 13:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
    @Lvova: Applied NR and improved exposure of the bee. Please see new version. --Tagooty 01:42, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Light-colored_cat_on_concrete_surface.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Light-colored cat on concrete surface in Ibb, Yemen --Mr.FarFar 20:55, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 15:20, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
    Ineligible: Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. --MB-one 16:53, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Old_City_of_Ibb_–_The_Grand_Mosque_(Al‑Omari_Mosque)_and_Al‑Asadiya_Mosque_and_School.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Old City of Ibb – The Grand Mosque (Al‑Omari Mosque) and Al‑Asadiya Mosque and School. --Mr.FarFar 06:31, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Ineligible: Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. --MB-one 16:53, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I don't understand all you oppose votes on this user's photos. He uploads his own pictures from Flickr, but he seems to be a Wikimedian. We have special point in the guidelines for such cases. I don't think this very picture is good enough to be QI, I just want to clarify the situation. --Екатерина Борисова 02:25, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Magdeburg,_Halberstädter_Straße_92.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Magdeburg, Halberstädter Straße 92 --Lvova 11:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, disturbing car. I can accept the parked car, but why not wait until the van had passed? --ArildV 19:04, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
    Because it is parked in the second line, and I didn't want to put a camp there. --Lvova 20:43, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The car in the foreground has better sharpness than the main subject, wrong focus. Also rather low resolution for a static, easy to take image. --Smial 14:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial --Sandro Halank 18:16, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, disturbing car and focus. --Plozessor 03:23, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:23, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Aigle_Impérial_Château_de_Fontainebleau.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Imperial eagle at the Château de Fontainebleau --Ed.histoire 21:52, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 05:45, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many burnt areas as is often the case with golden statues. Other opinions? Also the category is too general. --Екатерина Борисова 01:24, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Picture is borderline, I could accept the burnt areas, but categorization and description is too general, the picture does not show the palace as such. --Plozessor 03:25, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
  • I added several categories and wrote a more precise description. -- Ed.histoire 5:42, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support 👍--Plozessor 07:32, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 07:32, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Mouton_Évettes_Vanoise.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sheep with a view of the Évettes, Vanoise National Park (France) --Ed.histoire 21:52, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 00:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image without categories. Also sheep heads are too dark. --Екатерина Борисова 01:26, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image without categories. Also a little bit blurry especially in the background. --Remontees 10:23, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image is borderline, but categorization and description needs to be significantly improved. A more exact location (as description or coordinates) would be helpful, a national park of 528 km² is surely not precise enough. --Plozessor 03:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Porto_Covo_August_2026-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Breaking waves at the beach of Porto Covo, Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar 15:43, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 13:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, horizon is tilted and roks too dark IMO. The rendering of white tones is very good IMO --Lmbuga 16:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Fixed, thank you. -- Alvesgaspar 18:11, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 12:55, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Кыргауылды,_плод_тыквы_гигантской_на_Бирлик_94.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cucurbita maxima fruit at Birlik Street. Qyrgauyldy, Karasai District, Almaty Region, Kazakhstan. --Красный 08:16, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 13:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The area in focus is very small. I think the composition, with the leaf cropped at the top, is a mistake that spoils the photo – I’m sorry to say. --Lmbuga 16:49, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga - low DoF, unlucky composition. And why ISO 800 for a static subject?
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:29, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Сахат_кула_во_Битола_(Clock_tower,_Bitola).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sahat kula, Bitola, MacedoniaI --PetarM 08:05, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 09:59, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose QI already. --Екатерина Борисова 01:32, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова. --Harlock81 12:56, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 12:55, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Rhizostoma_pulmo_in_Oceanogràfic_Valencia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Specimen of Rhizostoma pulmo at the Oceanogràfic in Valencia --Esniom 14:03, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 06:42, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Weak sharpness and some posterizations --Jakubhal 13:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for the situation. --Plozessor 03:31, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:31, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Toda_Buffalo_Standing_Aramby_Shola_Ooty_Aug26_OM3_0855.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Toda buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) standing in Aramby Shola, Ooty --Tagooty 09:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Quite noisy --MB-one 13:14, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose  Not done --MB-one 17:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
    @MB-one: Sorry for the delay. I've uploaded a new version with NR in the background. --Tagooty 01:29, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support better now. --MB-one 13:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 13:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Westelijke_blindmuis_-_Lesser_Blind_Mole-rat_-_Nannospalax_leucodon.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lesser Blind Mole-rat (Nannospalax leucodon) in defensive posture on a hiking trail on Lesbos - Greece --BouketenCate 06:47, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 14:14, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose lack of sharpness and strong digital noise, particularly noticeable in the bottom area --TheAhasan 17:27, 5 September 2026 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Low DoF and in general low detail (can't tell why without EXIF data, probably it's a smartphone picture). Also would need a more specific location, "a hiking trail on Lesbos" is a bit too generic. --Plozessor 03:34, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:34, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Catanzaro_-_Stazione_FC_di_Catanzaro_Lido_-_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Catanzaro (Calabria, Italy) - Ferrovie della Calabria (FC) station of Cantazaro Lido --Benjism89 06:19, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 06:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite blurred in my opinion... --Remontees 08:40, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info New version with slight sharpening --Benjism89 17:24, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- JackyM59 09:41, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Pendeen_Lighthouse_July_2026_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pendeen lighthouse. --ArildV 05:09, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:10, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • (assumed  Oppose per rules) seems tilted and a little bit too red, isn't it? --Remontees 08:47, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
    Just little bit too red, not tilted --Esniom 09:00, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry, I can't see a touch of red. IMO the colors are OK. --XRay 09:21, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- JackyM59 09:08, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 18:50, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me, but remove the dust spot. --Rjcastillo 03:55, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
    Oh yes, there are two dust spots. I added a note for the second one (not easy to be seen). --Harlock81 13:03, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you all for comments and votes. New version uploaded (removed 2 dust spots, thanks for notes, and also a very small perspective correction).--ArildV 13:43, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
    @ArildV: Please, check that you uploaded the new version of the file (or it is a problem of cache for me). --Harlock81 15:15, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
    @Harlock81: There is an unresolved issue with stale cached images. I ran into it myself a few days ago. It should be fine by tomorrow, but you can already view some of the larger previews today. Jakubhal 18:22, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
    I’ve double-checked the file I uploaded. The two dust spots you pointed out were easy to find and remove in Lightroom. Regards --ArildV 19:10, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me --Jakubhal 18:20, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:29, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Blyth's_Leaf_Warbler_in_Lava_May_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blyth's Leaf Warbler (Phylloscopus reguloides) in Lava, West Bengal, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 06:45, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tail and wings blurred. The other two very similar QICs are better. --Tagooty 08:49, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 16:24, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above. Alvesgaspar 17:57, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support --PetarM 10:10, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --PetarM 10:10, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Neocorynura_codion_-_PNM_Fazenda_do_Carmo_-_Foxbugs(001).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Registro de Neocorynura codion em Parque Natural Municipal Fazenda do Carmo. By User:Foxbugs --Rodrigo.Argenton 22:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Downscaled? --Lvova 15:12, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --TheNoob1337 16:34, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I doubt. --Lvova 06:05, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I believe the macro bar of insects has raised quite a lot in the last years. This photo looks overprocessed, probably to compensate for the lack of quality. Alvesgaspar 18:05, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. This is not FPC. Yann 18:52, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable. --Plozessor 03:36, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:36, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kirchspiel,_ehem._Sondermunitionslager_Visbeck,_Fahrzeugschleuse_--_2026_--_1681.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lighting in the driveway to the US area of the special ammunition depot in the Dernekamp hamlet, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:24, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Sorry, but for me the main objects are not sharp enough --Michielverbeek 05:36, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've improved the sharpness. In my opinion, it's good enough. Hopefully. --XRay 09:54, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Front light is indeed sharper. Imo it is very difficult to get every light sharp, so I leave it to other people if this is sharp enough for QI --Michielverbeek 05:43, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • It’s difficult to get all the lights in focus. The photographic capabilities simply don’t allow for it. To achieve the compression effect, the lights were photographed with a long focal length, and the focus was deliberately set on the first, front light. The distance between the lights is so great that the aperture would have to be set very small. However, this would cause diffraction effects, which would increase the overall blurriness. The background, however, would be rendered too sharply. With the settings chosen, the lights stand out against the background, and the focus is on the front light, which is the main subject. -- XRay 09:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, poor framing. -- Alvesgaspar 18:07, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 18:53, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is acceptable as it is, but @XRay: please remove some categories. These are not "trees" and the picture doesn't show the "flora" of that area. --Plozessor 03:40, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Trees in the background, but I removed the categories with "trees". -- XRay 06:11, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:40, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Wayne_Swan_at_the_2026_Australian_Labor_Party_National_Conference_(028A9146).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wayne Swan at the 2026 Australian Labor Party National Conference. --Pangalau 06:12, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Esniom 08:04, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • (assumed  Oppose per rules) Too strong noise --Jakubhal 14:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The noise level is very high, indeed. Sorry, --Harlock81 14:51, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 18:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support OK for me. JaydenChao 13:47, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Come on guys, noise is seriously affecting detail! -- Alvesgaspar 18:17, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too much noise for a portrait without any motion --Sandro Halank 18:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise, why ISO 6400 for a portrait? --Plozessor 03:41, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:41, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Wschód_słońca_nad_doliną_Wisły_w_Pozowicach_pod_Krakowem,_20260830_0614_6518.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunrise in the mist over the Vistula Valley in Pozowice near Kraków, with crepuscular rays visible above the tree branches --Jakubhal 03:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:03, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp --Esniom 12:50, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • @Esniom: This is a photograph of fog, so naturally the scene has a somewhat soft appearance. Individual leaves are still clearly distinguishable, so I don't really understand what you consider insufficiently sharp here. --Jakubhal 17:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, sharp. Of course there are some burnt areas but that's unavoidable with such a subject --Benjism89 05:48, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo isn't developed very well. There are too many dark areas where the details are barely visible. The sky could be brought out more. As it is, the photo looks like a snapshot. -- XRay 09:25, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • @XRay: : I have reworked all three files from scratch, although the changes are not yet available at full resolution due to a stale cache (T435283). Please have another look, and if you think the new version is better, you may wish to reconsider your vote. In any case, this is the final version. I don't think I can get anything more out of it. --Jakubhal 17:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • @Benjism89: and @Agnes Monkelbaan: : Please check whether this version is still OK for you. --Jakubhal 17:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: I think it is a beautiful misty morning photo, but my old eyes leave something to be desired.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:56, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support I had to think about it for a while. I certainly would have developed the photo differently to highlight the sky with its beautiful light. As it is, the fog really stands out, and the photo has a rather soft overall look—which is typical for a situation like this. The brightness really improved the photo. So I’m changing my vote. -- XRay 09:32, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I understand the intention, but the result is not good enough due to lack of contrast and an extensive blurred area. Alvesgaspar 18:11, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 18:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture, showing what it is supposed to show. Whether to increase the contrast to make it more visually appealing or leave it closer to reality is an artistic choice but not an image defect. --Plozessor 03:43, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:43, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Wschód_słońca_nad_doliną_Wisły_w_Pozowicach_pod_Krakowem,_20260830_0614_6521.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunrise in the mist over the Vistula Valley in Pozowice near Kraków, with crepuscular rays visible above the tree branches --Jakubhal 03:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:02, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp --Esniom 12:50, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo isn't developed very well. There are too many dark areas where the details are barely visible. The sky could be brought out more. As it is, the photo looks like a snapshot. -- XRay 09:25, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: I think it is a beautiful misty morning photo, but my old eyes leave something to be desired.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:54, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support so comment at the first of the three photos. -- XRay 09:35, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As in the previous nomination. I certainly would not consider this photo as an example of a QI. Alvesgaspar 18:13, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --XRay 09:35, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Poranek_w_Pozowicach_pod_Krakowem,_20260830_0621_6523.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Early morning in Pozowice near Kraków, with fog over the fields --Jakubhal 03:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Harlock81 15:18, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp, poor exposure --Esniom 12:50, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo isn't developed very well. There are too many dark areas where the details are barely visible. The sky could be brought out more. As it is, the photo looks like a snapshot. -- XRay 09:24, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info Re-worked from RAW. XRay and Harlock81: please check --Jakubhal 17:44, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support so comment at the first of the three photos. -- XRay 09:35, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Extensive noise, lack of contrast, unsharpness. -- Alvesgaspar 18:14, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --XRay 09:35, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Portland,_Ore._(August_2026)_-_17.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Errol Heights Park, Portland, Oregon --Another Believer 02:15, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Esniom 12:50, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed --Jakubhal 14:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:05, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

File:2026_Owcza_Góra_w_Kłodzku_(5).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 05:59, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

File:A_pupa_of_Freyeria_putli_(Kollar,_1844)_-_Black-spotted_Grass_Jewel_(1)_WLB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A pupa of Freyeria putli (Kollar, 1844) - Black-spotted Grass Jewel (1) WLB --~~~~
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 15:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ok at thumbnail size, not much in focus when zoomed in. --Tagooty 04:44, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still incomplete nomination without signature and response. --Milseburg 12:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. Yann 18:59, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 12:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

File:A_pupa_of_Neptis_jumbah_(Moore,_1858)_-_Chestnut-streaked_Sailer_(2)_WLB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A pupa of Neptis jumbah (Moore, 1858) - Chestnut-streaked Sailer. By User:Anitava Roy --Atudu 08:24, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Borhan 10:15, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not categorised. --Lvova 15:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
    ✓ Done by me. --Harlock81 13:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. Yann 18:59, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 03:52, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Mon 31 Aug → Tue 08 Sep
  • Tue 01 Sep → Wed 09 Sep
  • Wed 02 Sep → Thu 10 Sep
  • Thu 03 Sep → Fri 11 Sep
  • Fri 04 Sep → Sat 12 Sep
  • Sat 05 Sep → Sun 13 Sep
  • Sun 06 Sep → Mon 14 Sep
  • Mon 07 Sep → Tue 15 Sep
  • Tue 08 Sep → Wed 16 Sep