close
Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Shortcut
Skip to nominations
BERJAYA

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 August 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 August 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 August 09 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]] 03:28, 9 August 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).


August 9, 2026

[edit]

August 8, 2026

[edit]

August 7, 2026

[edit]

August 6, 2026

[edit]

August 5, 2026

[edit]

August 4, 2026

[edit]

August 3, 2026

[edit]

August 2, 2026

[edit]

August 1, 2026

[edit]

July 31, 2026

[edit]

July 30, 2026

[edit]

July 28, 2026

[edit]

July 27, 2026

[edit]

July 26, 2026

[edit]

July 25, 2026

[edit]

July 23, 2026

[edit]

July 5, 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 BERJAYA Oppose and BERJAYA 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:British_Airways_A320,_Frankfurt_(20260412-P1074993).jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination British Airways Airbus A320-232 (registration G-EUYA) on final approach to Frankfurt International Airport --MB-one 15:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 15:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Good photo, but should be cropped. We don't need so much sky to show the context. (I believe width 2900-3000 px with 5:3 ratio would be ideal, but not necessarilly). --Pibwl 22:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support Maybe it could be slightly cropped on the top and bottom but certainly not at left and right. -- Alvesgaspar 11:42, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done cropped to a 3:2 ratio. Thanks for the reviews everyone. --MB-one 14:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Comment still I believe that we don't need to show much sky on the left an right. If someone uses a thumbnail in an article, the plane would not be seen well without zooming. Pibwl 20:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 08:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Giradabo_at_Tibidabo_amusement_park_in_Barcelona.jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination Giradabo ferris wheel at Tibidabo amusement park in Barcelona --IM027 10:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --Fl.schmitt 13:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Overexposed (blown out parts) and not very sharp IMO. Also questionable composition (too much sky). --Екатерина Борисова 01:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Out of focus. Alvesgaspar 12:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

File:MS_Härön_June_2026_06.jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination The ferry M/S Härön. --ArildV 08:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Looks like tilted? --Fl.schmitt 13:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
    BERJAYA Info Reset to "/Nomination". There is no vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • New version uploaded (tilt corrected) --ArildV 20:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 06:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Background is a little cluttered, particularly at bow; needs more space in front of the ship and still seems tilted. You took several of this ship that are better for QI than this one. --GRDN711 20:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Too tight crop. Alvesgaspar 12:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support Nothing wrong with this image IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:53, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support Good picture IMO Vsatinet 17:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Vsatinet (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kościół_św._Wawrzyńca_w_Krzeszówku_(02).jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination Saint Lawrence church in Krzeszówek by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 16:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • I think it lacks a little space in a foreground to show a perspective - unlike the other photo submitted. --Pibwl 14:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
    @Pibwl: I disagree, please discuss. --Jacek Halicki 16:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
    There was no reason to move it into the discussion phase. --Harlock81 (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 19:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose This picture gives a better view of the building. Shooting point was not optimal. --Harlock81 (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose I agree. Strange perspective too, the tower looks tilted. Alvesgaspar 12:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose per Harlock81 & Alvesgaspar. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kapliczka_przydrożna_w_Różance_(3).jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination Roadside chapel in Różanka by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 06:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • While this is an interesting composition with an old house, but a main subject is in a shadow, and a photo no. (4), already promoted to QI, shows it better. --Pibwl 14:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
    @Pibwl: Taking multiple photos of the same object from different angles does not violate QI rules. Just because one is worse and the other better doesn't mean the worse one doesn't deserve QI. Please discuss.--Jacek Halicki 16:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
    No reason (per rules) to move it into the discussion phase. --Harlock81 08:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 19:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose As above. Alvesgaspar 12:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support My main concern was a shadow in this view, not only a fact, that other views are better - nevertheless, good quality. Pibwl 21:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Dwór_w_Różance_(6).jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination Manor in Różanka by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 08:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • While I understand a purpose is to show a ruin from different angles, but this one doesn't show the main subject well IMO --Pibwl 21:25, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
    @Pibwl: Taking multiple photos of the same object from different angles does not violate QI rules. Just because one is worse and the other better doesn't mean the worse one doesn't deserve QI. Please discuss--Jacek Halicki 15:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
    No reason (per rules) to move it into the discussion phase. --Harlock81 08:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • The only issue is that it's a bit too noisy at the lower left corner. --Sebring12Hrs 19:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose per Pibwl, sorry. --Harlock81 08:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Not at all obvious what the subject is. Alvesgaspar 12:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Henryków_Dworzec_Mały_(1).jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination Henryków train station --Jacek Halicki 06:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • good quality, but looks like quite random shot --Gower 18:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • I agree, this one is not necessarilly a QI --Pibwl 21:25, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
    @Gower: @Pibwl: There used to be a railway station here, now only a trace of the tracks remains and that is what the photo shows. --Jacek Halicki 17:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
    Please discuss --Jacek Halicki 14:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
    No reason (per rules) to move it into the discussion phase. --Harlock81 08:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 19:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Not obvious what the subject is. A bit overexposed for my taste. Alvesgaspar 12:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose I agree with Alvesgaspar. The subject is not clear. The description and the categories refer to Henryków train station, that is covered by the trees. --Harlock81 08:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Omotesando_Avenue_at_sunset_from_pedestrian_bridge,_Jingumae,_Shibuya,_Tokyo.jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination Omotesando Avenue at sunset from pedestrian bridge --Gogchannel 10:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --S.Marchenko 12:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose (temporarily) I can't figure out if it's thick red CA's on the mast, or is it the way the evening light is reflected? Other opinions, please. --Екатерина Борисова 02:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose BERJAYA chromatic aberration --Jakubhal 04:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Better, but there's still some CA visible. Now I'm undecided, abstaining Jakubhal 17:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Comment I've reduced the purple fringing on the foliage and uploaded a new version. Regarding the orange on the mast: I believe it is specular reflection of the sunset light on the sun-facing side rather than CA. It appears only on the illuminated side with no complementary cyan on the opposite edge, and its hue matches the sky. Shot with Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN at f/3.5. Please have another look. --gog.creator (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Comment New version uploaded with the coloured fringing along the gantry reduced. Thanks for the careful reviews. Please have another look.--Gogchannel 08:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support good rework --Smial 16:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Comment OK, not ideal, but looks obviously better now. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support Nice photo, good enough image quality. -- Alvesgaspar 12:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Raxaul-Sagauli_Railway_Line.jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination Raxaul-Sagauli Railway Line in Bihar. --Saddam19 08:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --Fl.schmitt 09:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --S.Marchenko 12:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Beautiful image with very poor processing. Everything is too soft and unclear, low level of details in full size view. --Екатерина Борисова 02:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Overprocessed with BERJAYA Level of detail too low --Jakubhal 04:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Per Catherine and Jakubhal. --Sebring12Hrs 06:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → BERJAYA Declined   --Harlock81 08:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Aerial_view_of_Lake_Side_Street_Pokhara_Nepal.jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination Aerial view of Lake Side Street Pokhara Nepal. --Saddam19 08:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --S.Marchenko 12:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Perspective correction is badly needed. --Екатерина Борисова 02:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Strong perspective distortion --Jakubhal 04:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support It is a good illustrative photograph of a street, which is bended. Pibwl 20:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → BERJAYA Declined   --Harlock81 08:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_July_2026_-_Four_Seasons_Hotel.jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination Moscow - July 2026 - Four Seasons Hotel --Юрий Д.К. 23:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • BERJAYA Oppose Main subject of the photo is partly blocked. --Aplucas0703 02:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
    I disagree. "partly blocked" isn't a valid opposition ground imho. It isn't possible to take photo of the building from this angle without cars and security room. --Юрий Д.К. 13:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. I was there. I agree with author --Mike1979 Russia 17:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support Goid quality. --Sebring12Hrs 06:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → BERJAYA Promoted   --Harlock81 08:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

File:জলের_নক্ষত্রজগৎ.jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination In the galaxy of water, a tiny common kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) soars with outstretched wings. --Yahya 10:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • BERJAYA Oppose Poor detailing. --S.Marchenko 11:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose level of detail is too low --George Chernilevsky 14:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose The scene is great, but George Chernilevsky is right, sorry. --Harlock81 14:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support Level of detail is perfectly acceptable for the scene when viewed in full. --Aplucas0703 20:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
    Assumed support per rules. --Harlock81 07:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose As above. Alvesgaspar 20:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak BERJAYA Oppose. Unfortunately, I don't know if and how this beautiful scene can be technically salvaged, but unfortunately the sharpening and noise reduction algorithms didn't work well together in post-processing. A pity. --Smial 12:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → BERJAYA Declined   --Harlock81 12:42, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Sunflower_head_2026_G1.jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination Sunflower head -- George Chernilevsky 11:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --S.Marchenko 11:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Top half of the image is not sharp at f/8 this close to sun flower. --GRDN711 22:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support We are now accustomed to focus stacking. Would we get much greater depth of field at f/11? The area of ​​sharpness is in the center of the image and is highly detailed.-- JackyM59 12:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support A choice of the photographer. -- Alvesgaspar 20:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support per others --Smial 12:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → BERJAYA Promoted   --Harlock81 12:42, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Kaliakra_IMG_140603549.jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination Kaliakra, Bulgaria --Pibwl 16:17, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --S.Marchenko 17:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Sorry, but level of detail is low, image was overprocessed by the smartphone. And there are overexposed areas --Benjism89 21:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
    Assumed opposition. --Harlock81 07:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --Aplucas0703 02:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Looks great as a thumbnail, but level of details is really poor in full size view. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:49, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Pez_unicornio_de_nariz_corta_(Naso_brevirostris),_Nosy_Kalakajoro,_Madagascar,_2025-09-14,_DD_98.jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination Short-nosed unicornfish (Naso brevirostris), Nosy Kalakajoro, Madagascar --Poco a poco 06:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --Boston9 10:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose I disagree, the image is too noisy and unsharp. Alvesgaspar 14:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Comment Sharpness is more than acceptable for an underwater shot IMO, but noise could indeed be reduced --Benjism89 21:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks, BERJAYA Support now --Benjism89 10:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support Much better, thanks. --Harlock81 08:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → BERJAYA Promoted   --Harlock81 10:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Świętokrzyska-Kopernika_junction,_2026,_Warsaw,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination Bohdan Wodiczko square, 2026, Warsaw, Poland --Igor123121 01:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 02:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose I disagree Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. --Smial 12:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Once again, your accusations are completely groundless. The picture has not been downscaled; here is the original version straight from the camera: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C5%9Awi%C4%99tokrzyska-Kopernika_junction,_2026,_Warsaw,_Poland_test.jpg. It is logical (at least to me) that if a photo is heavily cropped at the bottom, its resolution decreases. I expect greater attentiveness and more careful choice of words. --Igor123121 08:49, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Okay, so it wasn't downscaled. Take your pick: unfavorable shooting location or incorrect focal length used. In other words, 50% of the sensor resolution wasted, so clearly the photographer's fault. Glad you confirmed that yourself. --Smial 10:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 07:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

File:East_face_of_Jiujiu_Peaks.jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination East face of Jiujiu Peaks in central Taiwan. --Tiouraren 16:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 18:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose Nice landscape, but nothing is in focus here, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose per Екатерина Борисова: no part of the picture is sharp enough for QI --Sandro Halank 10:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: @Sandro Halank: The image was already in focus, and I have uploaded a sharpened version with Sharpen and Shake Reduction filters applied. --Tiouraren 16:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Comment I would support the very first version, though I don't understand the high ISO setting. I don't like sharpening artifacts. --Smial 07:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
    • @Smial: The initially nominated version had actually been sharpened and was sharp enough to me, but since it was not considered sharp enough, I applied additional filters to make it even sharper. This image was a combination of ±2 EV bracketing, and the raw frames were captured under 105 mm without a tripod, so I applied ISO-640 to avoid motion blur. --Tiouraren (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Weak BERJAYA Support. Thanks for the detailed explanation. While I remain convinced that it would have worked at ISO 200—resulting in slightly less image noise and consequently less post-processing effort—I don't want to downvote the image, given its appealing composition, lighting, and beautiful colors. In any case, thanks to the high resolution, the image is good enough to meet my notorious A4 print size criterion. --Smial 12:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
@Smial: Appreciate the support. And yes, a lower ISO setting should have worked better. Please feel free to let me know if there is any space for improvement. --Tiouraren 13:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Tiouraren 13:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Prefecture_de_Police_at_Site_central_de_Gesvres,_Paris_(cropped).jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination Prefecture de Police at Site central de Gesvres, Paris --I.Mahesh 05:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 05:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
    BERJAYA Oppose And what about this one also nominated : File:Prefecture de Police at Site central de Gesvres, Paris.jpg. This one is the same but with a crop. I would like to hear others opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 13:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support IMHO different composition. Also this photo is better in my eyes. Юрий Д.К. 21:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Support I prefer this version for personal aesthetic reason as well. --Tiouraren (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Tiouraren (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Kosocicka_street,,._2026,_Kraków.,_Poland,_Bieżanów.jpg

[edit]

BERJAYA

  • Nomination: Kosocicka street,, 2026, Kraków., Poland, Bieżanów --Igor123121 00:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Review
  • BERJAYA Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • BERJAYA Oppose I disagree. Downscaled, needs PC. --Smial 13:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
    Assumed opposition per rules. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: I have never fully understood this. That is probably because I do not have a good command of the language.--Agnes Monkelbaan 11:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
PC is perspective correction. Or did I misunderstand the question? --Smial 17:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't understand "Downscaled".--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
It betsjut dat de ôfbylding mei opsetsin nei in lytser formaat skale is, wat yn striid is mei de oanbefellings fan Commons. Mooglik is dat dien om technyske problemen yn de folsleine ferzje te ferbergjen, lykas chromatyske aberraasje. Trouwens, der rint op it stuit in diskusje oer de nominaasjes en beoardielingen fan Igor. Dy diskusje rekket dy yndirekt, om’t Igor dyn foto’s promovearret, mooglik sûnder se goed te kontrolearjen, as in foarm fan wjersidigens sa’t hy dy sels liket te begripen. --Jakubhal 11:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Tankewol foar dyn útlis. Yn 't algemien tink ik dat syn foto's goed binne, en ik kin net witte oft se mei opsetsin yn grutte fermindere binne.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  • @Smial: @Jakubhal: I am amazed at how easily some users accuse other volunteers. All it took was to look at the EXIF data to see that the photo was taken with an 18 mm lens, so it makes sense that it was heavily cropped at the bottom; otherwise, 70 percent of the perspective would have been taken up by asphalt.--Igor123121 16:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  • @Igor123121: I am not voting on this nomination. I was only explaining what “downscaling” means. I therefore do not understand why you chose to address me personally. I have no desire to review this photograph.-- Jakubhal 19:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
@Igor123121: So, you’re trying to tell me that the original photo was shot in portrait orientation and you cropped off 70% from the bottom? Aside from the fact that the camera sensor's native resolution would have miraculously increased in that scenario, I’m afraid I have to stand by my negative vote; such flawed technique means the shot cannot serve as a good example for inexperienced photographers. My advice: when shooting landscapes like this, you should hold the camera in landscape orientation. --Smial 22:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → BERJAYA Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Harlock81 08:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sat 01 Aug → Sun 09 Aug
  • Sun 02 Aug → Mon 10 Aug
  • Mon 03 Aug → Tue 11 Aug
  • Tue 04 Aug → Wed 12 Aug
  • Wed 05 Aug → Thu 13 Aug
  • Thu 06 Aug → Fri 14 Aug
  • Fri 07 Aug → Sat 15 Aug
  • Sat 08 Aug → Sun 16 Aug
  • Sun 09 Aug → Mon 17 Aug