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 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]] 22:15, 8 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 8, 2026

[edit]

February 7, 2026

[edit]

February 6, 2026

[edit]

February 5, 2026

[edit]

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 26, 2026

[edit]

January 25, 2026

[edit]

January 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. 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:Moulin_de_l'Aile_(59987).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moulin de l'Aile --JackyM59 19:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good composition but the image lacks detail and looks  Overprocessed. --Augustgeyler 19:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  implicit vote per rules Looks OK to me. Could you me more precisely? What looks overprocessed? --Tuxyso 21:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. --George Chernilevsky 22:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks fine in full size. Юрий Д.К. 16:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:École_maternelle_Anselme_Lesage.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination École maternelle Anselme Lesage --JackyM59 18:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 19:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  implicit vote per rules I disagree, the sky is overexposed --Jacek Halicki 19:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • The sky was overexposed (backlit) on the left but was immediately corrected using CR3. If I do more, I get strange colours in the sky. --JackyM59 19:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 20:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good imho Юрий Д.К. 16:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Torre_Eiffel,_París,_Francia,_2022-10-29,_DD_158-160_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Benjism89: are you sure about that? I always though that the copyright violation only applies to the special light show in the night, not to the standard (and static) illumination (which is the case here). Poco a poco 12:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • According to the discussion in the deletion request, copyright is claimed on all night lightings of the Eiffel Tower. --Benjism89 17:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is a general view and de minimis works here (if just illuminating the tower with yellow creates a new copyright, I very doubt). Юрий Д.К. 16:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • The tower is right in the center of the picture, the title of the file mentions the tower, definitely not de minimis. I do agree, though, that the company operating the Eiffel Tower has quite an extensive vision of copyright. But our goal, here, is to provide people with images they can use without the risk of being sued. The company operating the Eiffel Tower earns 1M€ a year with copyright fees : I believe it is likely they will sue anyone making significant money by using this picture commercially. --Benjism89 17:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Auxerre_-_Cathédrale_Saint-Étienne_-_Intérieur_-_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Auxerre (Yonne, France) - Saint Stephen cathedral - West rose window --Benjism89 11:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp. Sorry. --Brihaspati 13:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks sharp enough to me. --Tuxyso 14:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree that this one is not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 19:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Meiningen,_katholische_Pfarrkirche_Sankt_Agatha_Dm65760_IMG_9445_2025-08-22_10.00.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Meiningen in Austria, catholic church: Pfarrkirche Sankt Agatha --Michielverbeek 06:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lower left part is un-sharp. Too intense distortion at the tower. --Augustgeyler 19:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't agree --Michielverbeek 20:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Temple_of_Vespasianus_in_Forum_Romanum_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Temple of Vespasianus – Forum Romanum in Rome, Lazio, Italy. --Tournasol7 01:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Very blurry in bottom part --Екатерина Борисова 03:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's normal for DOF, the main object is in focus. --Tournasol7 12:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • OK, let's wait for some other review. --Екатерина Борисова 04:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support It could be disturbing for some peaople but ok for others. I would like to hear others opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 16:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Go to CR, because I think Catherine's comment could be understood as an implicit oppose. --Sebring12Hrs 16:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
     Comment This might be possible, but your vote has been the only one so far. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
     Comment You're right, but once I voted "for" over a comment from Catherine and she didn't like it at all. So I don't know what to do in that case. --Sebring12Hrs 17:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Mairie_de_Rieulay_(21164).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mairie de Rieulay --JackyM59 12:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 14:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong purple fringing on branches in upper right. --Екатерина Борисова 03:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support CAs are not very strong to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 11:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Бухара,_дворец_Мохи-Хосса,_ваза_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chinese vase in exhibition of Sitorai Mokhi-Khosa palace of the Emir of Bukhara. Bukhara, Uzbekistan.This media was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Folklore 2026 international photographic contest. --Красный 21:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 22:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Motion blur, relflected light... --Sebring12Hrs 00:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. --Augustgeyler 14:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've noticed but I think that it isn't possible to shot the vase without reflected light, so I've supported this as an exception. Юрий Д.К. 14:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ardea_herodias_Balancan_2026-01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ardea herodias in Balancan, Tabasco, Mexico: --Cvmontuy 13:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose very sorry, nice composition, but too much noise and lack of detail. white on head also appears to be "clipped." --Pdanese 17:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI IMO --Ermell 21:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, it could be sharper and more detailed, but the composition is very good. -- Alvesgaspar 16:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Far from QI to me. Artifacts visible. Not sharp to me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Quality good enough IMO --Benjism89 11:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Fabry-Pérot_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination multiple Fabry–Pérot resonators. By User:Kaizuuu2 --Gower 12:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support High EV. --Laitche 12:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 04:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree, despite the illustrative value. The image will continue to be useful without the QI status. Alvesgaspar 16:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 17:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 17:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Tenement_house,_1892_design._Leopold_Tlachna,_17_Czysta_street,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tenement house, 1892 design. Leopold Tlachna, 17 Czysta street, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 04:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Llez 06:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfixed barrel distortion --Gower 12:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Why not wait for an occasion when cars are not parked there? -- Alvesgaspar 16:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 14:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Tenement_house,_1892_design._Kazimierz_Henisz,_5_Czysta_street,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tenement house, 1892 design. Kazimierz Henisz, 5 Czysta street, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 04:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfixed barrel distortion --Gower 12:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose And disturbing cars. --Sebring12Hrs 09:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Gower and Sebring12Hrs --Michielverbeek 20:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Michielverbeek 20:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Tenement_house,_1853,_5_Dolnych_Młynów_street,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kamienica, 1853, ul. Dolnych Młynów 5, Piasek, KrakówJa, właściciel praw autorskich do tego dzieła, udostępniam je na poniższej licencji --Igor123121 04:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Barrel distortion. --Екатерина Борисова 04:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова. --Sebring12Hrs 09:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Temple_Septimien_(Djemila)_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Septimien Temple, Djemila, Algeria --Bgag 03:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, overprocessed and quite low resolution. --Plozessor 04:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done You're right. I have uploaded a new version. Please discuss. --Bgag 16:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed, new version is good. I think no need to discuss then. --Plozessor 04:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Despite the brightness, which I would reduce a bit -- Alvesgaspar 16:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still overprocessed in my opinion, with low level of real details --Benjism89 11:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good compostion. But per Benjism89: Over-sharpened and  Overprocessed. --Augustgeyler 19:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Benjism89 11:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Mgławica_Półksiężyc_NGC_6888.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cerscent Nebula (NGC 6888). By User:Wojciech Mazur --Gower 19:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 22:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not so sharp, I would like to hear others opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 19:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 13:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Roggenburg-Biberach,_katholische_Pfarrkirche_Sankt_Sebastian_und_Ottilia_DmD-7-75-149-14_IMG_0210_2025-08-30_11.34.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Biberach in Germany-Bavaria, catholic church: Pfarrkirche Sankt Sebastian und Ottilia --Michielverbeek 16:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good composition. But the image ist lacking sharpness especially in the upper and right part. Additionally the level of detail is low. --Augustgeyler 19:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I would like to hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 19:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall unsharp. Alvesgaspar 11:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support By far sharp enough for an A4 size print. I see a photo here that has been carefully crafted to suit the diffuse lighting conditions and makes the most of the camera's capabilities. I am always very grateful when photos are not overly sharpened. --Smial 13:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Zamek_w_Ratnie_Dolnym_(05).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ratno Dolne Castle 4 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 13:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The building is cut, it spoils the compo. --Sebring12Hrs 11:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: The main subject of the photo is the building itself, especially since the tower is being renovated and covered with scaffolding.--Jacek Halicki 13:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  • @Jacek Halicki: That would not be an issue for me, if the Crop was tighter and if you could perform a slight perspective correction. --Aciarium 11:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info Please disscusion --~~~~
  •  Comment Expand the image description, for example, with “South facade of the orangery ...”, then it will be fine ;-) --Smial 13:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
@Smial: ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 18:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Radków,_pl._Rynek_21_(1).jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment The correction wasn't done well enough. There're a piece of car at the bottom and a man with cut-off legs in bottom left corner. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
@Екатерина Борисова: ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 18:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
OK, acceptable now, thanks. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

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

[edit]

@Екатерина Борисова: ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 18:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Not ideal, but acceptable now, thanks. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова (talk) 04:41, 8 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)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs – very soft and quite low on resolution. --Augustgeyler 19:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:06, 3 February 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)
  • Review
  •  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)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:34, 8 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)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted, look unnatural --George Chernilevsky 09:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • 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
  • Thu 05 Feb → Fri 13 Feb
  • Fri 06 Feb → Sat 14 Feb
  • Sat 07 Feb → Sun 15 Feb
  • Sun 08 Feb → Mon 16 Feb