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 03 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]] 17:57, 3 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 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 27, 2026

[edit]

August 26, 2026

[edit]

August 25, 2026

[edit]

August 24, 2026

[edit]

August 23, 2026

[edit]

August 22, 2026

[edit]

August 21, 2026

[edit]

August 15, 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:Манастир_св_Богородице_Пречисте,_Кичево.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kičevo Monastery, Macedonia --PetarM 06:36, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 08:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • (assumed  Oppose per rules) I disagree, need PC corection --Jacek Halicki 11:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support I don't see any need to correct the verticals. -- XRay 09:26, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:05, 3 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:05, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Chandragiri_Cable_Car,Kathmandu_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Entry Gate of Chandragiri Cable Car,Kathmandu --Saddam19 05:57, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tisha Mukherjee 07:31, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor processed, loss of detail --George Chernilevsky 22:13, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per George Chernilevsky --Jakubhal 05:42, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:05, 3 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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 08:05, 3 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:05, 3 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:05, 3 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:Open_wing_Basking_of_Graphium_antiphates_(Cramer,_1775)_-_Five-bar_Swordtail_(3)_WLB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Open wing Basking of Graphium antiphates (Cramer, 1775) - Five-bar Swordtail (3) WLB --Anitava Roy 14:54, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Esniom 16:23, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, there are too many dark and out-of-focus areas around the head and nearby (including the eyes), the wings are overexposed in my opinion, and the tails lack detail. Vignetting--Lmbuga 17:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 13:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

File:AC_SO_Karlspreisverleihung_2026_14._Mai_Dom_Christine_Lagarde_I.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Christine Lagarde at Aachen Cathedral during the 2026 Charlemagne Prize award ceremony in Aachen --Grunpfnul 12:12, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Has a focus problem. --MJGTMKME123 12:17, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, in my opinion. I don't like the composition, unless I think it's a photograph that criticises those politicians who turn their backs on ordinary people. --Lmbuga 14:07, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a focus problem. --Berthold Werner 16:00, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 13:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Mahtab_Yaghma,_Buchmesse_2025,_Frankfurt_(20251018-P1063371).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Writer and women's rights activist Mahtab Yaghma at Frankfurt Book Fair 2025 --MB-one 11:16, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 14:27, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cropped version of this image is already a QI. We don't have a rule for such cases, but there is the discussion where there have been statements against such nominations. What will be the opinions here? --Екатерина Борисова 02:07, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
 Comment @Екатерина Борисова it's not strictly a crop of the same image, but two images of the same subject at slightly different image distances. --MB-one 11:25, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Oh, I've looked carefully and I see now that the background is different. I deeply apologize. I'm probably traumatized by Igor's actions and now I'm a bit too suspicious :) But the shooting time is the same down to tenths of a second, how can it be? -- Екатерина Борисова 02:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
@Екатерина Борисова : Thanks for the keen eye. I have to investigate, why both show the same shooting time down to 1/1000s of a second. Both were actually shot within a few seconds. --MB-one 09:33, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
@@Екатерина Борисова: It appears, that the creation time of the other version has been copied to this one. I have corrected the time on the file page with the value from EXIF wich is 11 seconds earlier. --MB-one 09:46, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. I don't like the lighting, but as it's not a studio shot, still acceptable. After all, it is significantly better than those terrible celebrity photos in front of those colorful sponsor backdrops—photos that have already been readily accepted here. It's not a crop, has different background. --Smial 14:24, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 08:09, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

File:AC_BD_Johanniterstraße_7.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Listed building at Johanniterstraße 7 in Aachen, Germany --Grunpfnul 14:37, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 14:41, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Come on, guys!! Distracting shadow and car in the foreground. -- Alvesgaspar 14:50, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:30, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Harlock81 07:36, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 08:07, 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 15:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Stefano_Maderno_-_Martyrdom_of_Saint_Cecilia_-_Church_of_St._Cecilia_-_Rome.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue - The Martyrdom of St. Cecilia (1600). The artist, Stefano Maderno, testified that the pose of the statue reflects the position of the relics when they were found in 1599. Basilica of Santa Cecilia in Trastevere, Rome. By User:Durski --Gower 06:23, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 09:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support High quality photograph. I disagree with Berthold Werner, I think the amount of noise is acceptable given the conditions. --Gauzecard 09:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
  • (assumed  Oppose per rules) I disagree, too much noise --Berthold Werner 14:33, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The amount of noise is acceptable, imo. -- Alvesgaspar 07:43, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Berthold. Action photos with less image noise have been rejected here in the past. --Smial 16:46, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:33, 2 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Tulipa_gesneriana,_2026,_Poland_(23).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tulipa gesneriana, 2026, Poland --Igor123121 22:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pangalau 04:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose At least two dust spots --Lmbuga 16:11, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Tulipa_gesneriana,_2026,_Poland_(24).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tulipa gesneriana, 2026, Poland --Igor123121 22:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:11, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose At least two dust spots --Lmbuga 16:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perhaps the composition should follow the rule of thirds. The people who are cut off on the left and the tree that is cut off on the right make the photo look unbalanced. -- XRay 09:20, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please remove the large dust spot in the sky and crop a bit on the left. quite good, otherwise. Alvesgaspar 16:31, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Behruz_Karimov_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Uzbek footballer Behruz Karimov - HusanSabitov 08:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 09:19, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The output resolution is far below the sensor resolution of the used camera --PantheraLeo1359531 13:34, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
    Implicite opposition per rules. --Harlock81 08:30, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per PantheraLeo1359531 --Milseburg (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Sunset_over_Macau_Tower_with_cloudy_sky.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset over Macau Tower with cloudy sky --JaydenChao 18:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Underexposed, sorry --Vitorperrut555 02:51, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
    @Vitorperrut555: Thanks for the review! This was intentionally captured and processed as a sunset silhouette to emphasize the dramatic sky and the iconic outline of the Macau Tower, rather than an accidental underexposure. Would you consider this artistic approach acceptable under the guidelines? --JaydenChao 06:54, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
     Comment @JaydenChao: Please, add significant categories regarding your choise of obtaining a sunset silhouette. You may search for the most suitable ones in Category:Silhouettes. --Harlock81 08:36, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
    ✓ Done by JaydenChao.
     Support Imho, it works as a sunset silhouette. The sky is well taken, and the silhouette of the tower stands out from the background. --Harlock81 (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Harlock81. --Phyrexian ɸ 19:35, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No doubt it is underexposed, the question is: was it accidental or made on purpose? I downloaded the photo, played a little with it, and realized that a much better image can be achieved by adjusting brightness and increasing contrast. -- Alvesgaspar 13:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
    @Alvesgaspar: Thanks for checking it! I kept it dark on purpose because I wanted a pure silhouette and didn't want the noise from brightening it up. But I get what you mean about the contrast! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaydenChao (talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Neutral In my opinion, the photo isn't really developed at all. The background is too dark, and the silhouette isn't clear enough. -- XRay 07:59, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:39, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2024-2026_Toyota_Yaris_Cross_Hybrid_G_rear.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rear view of 2024 Toyota Yaris Cross Hybrid G --TTTNIS 09:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Off center. --Cutlass 10:25, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Is this the valid reason to decline? I'm not an expert in car photography, so I'd like to hear some experienced opinions. --Екатерина Борисова 03:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. Alvesgaspar 16:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Temp  Oppose The white paint has some strange color casts. Is that a special effect finish, or is it overexposure combined with poor white balance? I don't get the "not centered" point—is it absolutely mandatory for the spacing from the edge of the image to be identical on the left and right down to the pixel? --Smial 17:48, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I'd gladly see it cropped a bit from the right, if I wanted to use it in an article.. Pibwl 15:16, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Above the QI-bar in my eyes. --Milseburg 16:11, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The spacing doesn't have to be the same all around the vehicle. But overall, I think the spacing is too tight. And if the spacing on the right and left is different in a photo like this, then the wider spacing should essentially be in the direction of travel—that is, on the left. -- XRay 07:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 16:11, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Old_Town_Market_Square,_2026,_Warsaw,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Old Town Market Square, 2026, Warsaw, Poland --Igor123121 00:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:08, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (temporarily) Too much sky IMO. Easy to fix. --Екатерина Борисова 02:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very good sharpness but per Catherine. --Sebring12Hrs 13:22, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова --Milseburg (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice mood, good quality. -- Alvesgaspar 16:18, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 21:56, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downscaled and/or cropped, bad composition, bad lighting. --Smial 13:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - In my opinion, too much sky, as Екатерина also said. --Perquirius 21:24, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:33, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 26 Aug → Thu 03 Sep
  • Thu 27 Aug → Fri 04 Sep
  • Fri 28 Aug → Sat 05 Sep
  • Sat 29 Aug → Sun 06 Sep
  • Sun 30 Aug → Mon 07 Sep
  • Mon 31 Aug → Tue 08 Sep
  • Tue 01 Sep → Wed 09 Sep
  • Wed 02 Sep → Thu 10 Sep
  • Thu 03 Sep → Fri 11 Sep