Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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]] 17:36, 4 November 2025 (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).


November 4, 2025

[edit]

November 3, 2025

[edit]

November 2, 2025

[edit]

November 1, 2025

[edit]

October 31, 2025

[edit]

October 30, 2025

[edit]

October 29, 2025

[edit]

October 28, 2025

[edit]

October 27, 2025

[edit]

October 26, 2025

[edit]

October 25, 2025

[edit]

October 24, 2025

[edit]

October 23, 2025

[edit]

October 17, 2025

[edit]

October 16, 2025

[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:The_Black_Swan_Family_in_the_Red_Lake_of_Peking_University.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A family of black swans in the Red Lake of Peking University. Four black swan cygnets surround the female black swan. The male black swan behind is vigilantly paying attention to the surrounding environment. --星外之神 15:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Poor processing, lack of detail due strong jpeg compression --George Chernilevsky 16:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review and feedback. To clarify, the image was saved at JPEG quality 95. I believe the perceived artifacts are not from JPEG loss but are a characteristic of the capture technology itself at the pixel level. This photo was taken with a 200-megapixel sensor. When viewed at 100%, the rendering of the absolute finest textures, like the cygnets' down, reflects the inherent trade-offs of a system pushing for maximum resolution. The character at this microscopic level is different from that of a lower-resolution sensor, but the overall detail captured is immense and, I argue, a best-practice example of this technology. The image provides an exceptionally clear, ground-level view of the Black Swan family, offering significant encyclopedic value. I believe this value and the extraordinary amount of preserved detail strongly support its qualification as a featured picture. --星外之神 00:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Most of the family is out of focus, including the cygnets in the foreground. Only one swan is in focus, but it has poor detail due to overprocessing by the phone software -- Jakubhal 07:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 07:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Kasr_Khrachfa_vue_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kasr KhrachfaCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 82-67.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Skander zarrad 15:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 19:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Dust spots. --Sebring12Hrs 02:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cvmontuy 10:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Kasr_Khrachfa_vue_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kasr KhrachfaCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 82-67.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Skander zarrad 15:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 19:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Dust spots. --Sebring12Hrs 02:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cvmontuy 10:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Withered_jacaranda_(Jacaranda_mimosifolia)_flowers_on_a_car's_hood,_Avenida_Miguel_Bombarda,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Withered jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) flowers on a car's hood, Avenida Miguel Bombarda, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 12:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 14:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Random composition imo --Cvmontuy 16:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I was going for messy, rather than random. Jacarandá flowers are beautiful but they make a mess of things when they fall: sticky sidewalks and cars, and an odd smell. I tried to capture that messiness by putting the main subject (the lump of withered flowers in focus) off-center, with fewer and softer flowers all around to guide the viewer's eye --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cvmontuy 10:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Shop_ceiling_Tezontepec_boots_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Shop ceiling decorated with boots: --Cvmontuy 01:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 02:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of sharpness --A S M Jobaer 11:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 11:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 12:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cvmontuy 10:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Prinzipalmarkt_--_2025_--_9886.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the row of houses on Prinzipalmarkt (approximately house numbers 32 to 38), Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Interesting, but only center is in fact sharp. --Gower 13:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    This is inevitable given the length of the row of houses. With a wider aperture, the photo would generally be blurrier, even if the depth of field increases. Here, the central area is sharp, but the houses further in front and behind are still sufficiently sharp. --XRay 05:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cvmontuy 10:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cvmontuy 10:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:2025_Kłodzko,_ul._Bohaterów_Getta_23.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 23 Bohaterów Getta Street in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 00:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • I'd suggest to crop or retouch the street sign in bottom left and the piece of roof in upper right. --Екатерина Борисова 01:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 04:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I will also be happy to support this photo, but only after a response from the author. --Екатерина Борисова 02:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Implicit oppose. --Sebring12Hrs 09:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment But you reset to "nomination" while there is a "support" vote. --Sebring12Hrs 07:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is not such a thing as implicit oppose, the vote must be explicit, please do not change others votes --Cvmontuy 10:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • That's not correct. The CR Rules state that if an image is moved to CR by contestation of the original reviewer's decision, an opposing vote is assumed. The only other alternative is to promote the image immediately. What it seems has happened here is that someone has added a comment, then another reviewer promoted the image, overruling the first reviewer's comment. If we do not ascribe an opposing vote to that first reviewer (Екатерина Борисова), the only other alternative is to immediately promote the image because no formal opposition was made.--Peulle 11:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 11:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Kasr_Béni_Kheddache_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kasr Béni KheddacheCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 82-68.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Cheima fezzani 23:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 20:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Buildings are leaning too much to me. --Sebring12Hrs 02:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Norderney,_Strand_--_2025_--_8977_(bw).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sea foam washed up on the beach, Norderney, Lower Saxony, Germany --XRay 04:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose It is BW version of QI image, therefore is the same source image. --Gower 18:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • And again, the same discussion. The path to black-and-white photography is a separate development. Thus, the source is identical, but the result is different. I can understand that slight changes do not lead to a separate nomination, but the two development paths, black-and-white and color, are fundamentally different and were generally accepted by QIC. --XRay 05:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Does that mean I can nominate colour, black/white and sepia versions of all my photos? Stand by, QIC, for a flood of over 1500 pictures with tiny alterations on processing. Sorry, but it's a no from me.  Oppose --Peulle 07:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Not all images work well in black & white. There should be a purpose (in this case, I believe it is to focus the viewer's attention in the play of specular highlights and textures, while getting rid of the distracting longitudinal chromatic aberration) and a tailored editing process to fulfil that purpose. -Julesvernex2 17:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Julesvernex2 (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Façade_Mosquée_el_Khouch.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Façade Mosquée el Khouch --Atef Ouni 08:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Good, but overall grainy, can you reduce it a bit? --Gower 21:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
     SupportVery good quality, I don't see anything that needs to be reduced --Kritzolina 10:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Gower. Very noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 02:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Madrid_2009-06-08_07.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Person sleeping on a bench in Madrid, Spain. Taken in 2009. --Lmbuga 18:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Taken with an old Canon PowerShot G10 in 2009, but still good. --Sebring12Hrs 18:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • @Lmbuga: , did you ask him for a permission to publish his image? Spanish law requires it. --Gower 19:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment So go to CR, but don't reset to "nomination" please. --Sebring12Hrs 19:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I cannot prove that a law does not exist; it is impossible. It is up to you to prove that this law exists in 2009, sorry. Be that as it may, that is not a matter for QIC. Propose the image for deletion from Wikimedia Commons. I can tell you thousands of photos that should be deleted (although that doesn't matter much). For example, this photo of my son in 2006: File:Felicidade A very happy boy.jpg. He was 4 years old, so I couldn't ask him.--Lmbuga 19:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If so, I oppose: "Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people." --Gower 20:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment They are guidelines, not mandatory protocols. Seek the law and be a fair person by showing it. There is no violation of the guidelines if the law does not exist. --Lmbuga 21:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment On the other hand, after taking the photo, I asked him and he had no problem with it. But that circumstance is worthless in Wikimedia Commons, which is why there is such a complex system as OCR and why I did not mention it earlier. --Lmbuga 21:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I can continue arguing out of necessity (I don't care about the picture) and, incidentally, to demonstrate that this discussion should be taking place elsewhere. A flagrant violation of copyright is not the same as a discussion like this. The guidelines make it easier to reject a flagrant copyright violation, but they do not oblige you to act as you do in a highly debatable situation. A situation in which I will not remain silent. There is a template called ‘Deletion request’. Be brave. --Lmbuga 21:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Other pictures without permision: All of Category:People in Santiago de Compostela. Some of mine --Lmbuga 22:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Now, in all honesty and sincerity, I am going to indicate what I think you mean: COM:CREEP. But in my opinion, it is a futile struggle (or flight) --Lmbuga 22:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I'll never be able to promote this photo because you don't dare to submit a deletion request? --Lmbuga 23:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment "I asked him and he had no problem with it", if it's true it changes everything completely. Just add {{consent}} template and I don't oppose --Gower 05:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality Jakubhal 05:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hi! I'm from Madrid. The law aplicable to the photo is the Ley Orgánica 15/1999. I have read the relevant parts for the discussion. You live in Spain, and you now owe the government from 100.000 to 10.000.000 pesetas. Good luck, @Lmbuga: . But if you did ask permission, that is something else. I'm nominating the photo for deletion. I am brave~. Earth605 16:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes? Earth605 16:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Woman_sitting_on_the_grass,_Palácio_das_Galveias,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Woman sitting on the grass, Palácio das Galveias, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 15:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose too blurry --Gower 16:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info The old Fuji S5 Pro produces interpolated images that are not bitingly sharp as those from modern cameras, but they are certainly not blurry. --Julesvernex2 17:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info In other words: not sharp enough --Gower 19:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Sure, I wasn't trying to be a sticker for accurate technical terms: I understand what you mean, I just don't agree with it :) --Julesvernex2 19:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture and sharp enough. --Plozessor 16:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 16:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Puma_(Puma_concolor_concolor)_female_Leona_Amarga_6.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Puma (Puma concolor) female --Charlesjsharp 11:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --AFBorchert 11:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Head lacks sharpness (ears are in focus but nose not) --Gower 12:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somehow overprocessed with strong differences in sharpness, also noise. --Plozessor 16:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 16:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Mâcon_-_Pont-Saint-Laurent_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mâcon (Saône-et-Loire, France) - Saint Lawrence bridge, towards Saint-Laurent-sur-Saône --Benjism89 09:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Wrong focus, too much to the front --Michielverbeek 11:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me, let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 12:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bridge isn't very sharp unfortunately. --Gower 15:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Subject not sharp, per others. --Plozessor 16:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 16:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:León_(Panthera_leo),_parque_nacional_Serengueti,_Tanzania,_2024-05-26,_DD_37.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lion (Panthera leo), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 07:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 11:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Purple chromatic aberration to fix. --Gower 19:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lion is slightly lacking detail, sorry --Gower 07:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, but not very sharp --Gower 18:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Dear @Gower: I see two your contradicting votes in one day. For now I have counted the latest one. --LexKurochkin 06:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks great to me! --PeterCooperJr 02:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 06:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Gueterwagen_001_2023_08_27.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wagon markings on a covered goods wagon (baggage car G10) belonging to the Deutsche Reichsbahn of the Cuckoo Railway
    --F. Riedelio 15:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Nice, but chromatic aberration at the bottom and color noise to fix. --Gower 17:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    • ✓ New version Improved. Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 08:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Something very bad happened with edges of the stones like overprocessing unfortunately. --Gower 20:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
        • ✓ New version Denoised. Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 08:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
        •  Info I cannot find any disturbing chromatic aberration, let's discuss. --F. Riedelio 06:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support There is very slight magenta fringing on high contrast edges near lower left corner of the photo, but not critical to me. --LexKurochkin 08:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Temporary  Oppose because of the (easily fixable) purple CA in the lower left corner (between the stones and the wagon). Otherwise very good picture. --Plozessor 16:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    • ✓ New version CA removed. Thanks for the review. -- F. Riedelio • 💬 06:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good now! --Plozessor 16:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 16:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:20240614_great_blue_heron_wethersfield_cove_PD200579.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great blue heron,Wethersfield Cove, Wethersfield, CT USA --Pdanese 11:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 12:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image shows strange mosaic of sharp and blurred zones. Look at beak, neck, body, legs. Looks like some sophisticated processing was applied with partial success. --LexKurochkin 13:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 18:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with LexKurochkin. There appear to be blurred areas between sharp areas on the body of the bird. Was an attempt made to blur the background blurred in post-processing? --GRDN711 22:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment "Was an attempt made to blur the background". I ran the raw file through the DxO PureRAW 4 on the lowest setting to create a dng (as I do with most of my raws) . Other than that, I did nothing. I'm not really seeing what you're seeing, but that may not mean much. Thank you for the review. --Pdanese 09:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Except for the oddities (added note), this is actually a good image. Suggest you take another look at the post-processing. --GRDN711 16:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @GRDN711 Thanks for the feedback / annotation. If you're interested, here's a link to the original RAW and a denoised dng file: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RKRiGGgf7LEjgYtJo0TYz5zkQYbJE86Y I periodically delete my dngs to save disk space, so the dng is freshly created). I don't see anything unusual. I think that area might have been a part of the bird that was extra soaked with water (who knows?), thereby reducing detail? However, I'm traveling and my screen is small and I'm having difficulty assessing the images. It's not a big deal either way. If it gets rejected, not the end of the world! --Pdanese 11:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for the link. I have checked both ARW and DNG and see nothing unusual. The tip of the beak, the tail side of body and one leg are slightly out of focus, the head, neck, and the most of the body are fine. --LexKurochkin 06:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I tried to process it myself in Affinity Photo. The original ARW is rather noisy (both luminance and chroma), and as soon as I tried to use denoise, I saw, that it made neck feathers unsharp. I think something like that happened during the first DNG conversion process as DNG was denoised. --LexKurochkin 06:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info [1] The best I could do (and I am not sure if it is better than the original or not). The first huge 16-bit PNG is a result of ARW processing in RawTherapee. The smaller and brighter PNG is the next step result in PhotoScape (levels and CA removing). And the final JPG is created in TopazDenoiseAI. That's up to you, to use it or not. Thank you, it was interesting to try processing the photo myself. --LexKurochkin 09:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the apparent blur comes from natural differences in feather texture and some damp areas rather than post-processing Jakubhal 06:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Definitely over the QI bar for me. --Plozessor 16:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 16:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:TC_24,_Essen_(TCE43375).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz 600 Pullman Landaulet (six door) at Techno-Classica 2024, Essen --MB-one 10:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 14:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but noisy and a cluttered background --Jakubhal 14:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose And the little area in focus is too much noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 14:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others: too much noise, too low DoF, cluttered background. --Plozessor 16:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 16:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Jardin_et_musée_Massey,_Tarbes.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Massey gardens (and museum) . --Florent Abel 04:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but this is the same here. The smartphone creates an overprocessed and not sharp image. --Sebring12Hrs 08:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Lvova 13:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Fous_de_bassan_sur_l'île_Rouzic_en_Bretagne.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fous de bassan sur l'île Rouzic en Bretagne --JackyM59 12:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Chromatic noise. Incorrectly categorised (Category:Morus bassanus?). --Lmbuga 16:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Categories done --JackyM59 11:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
    The lines blue are plastic... --JackyM59 15:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sufficient quality for an A4 print, even though the image is blurry at full resolution. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not focused, a little bit blurry. Lvova 12:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is borderline to me. --Sebring12Hrs 19:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lvova and Sebring12Hrs --Lmbuga 18:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 20:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:20250728_wood_duck_keeney_cove_PD202292_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wood Duck, overhead closeup. Keeney Cove. Glastonbury, CT USA --Pdanese 10:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Interesting, but only eyes and top of the head are in focus. --Gower 16:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I'd like this to be discussed. It's not going to win any awards & I know there is some subjectivity to QI, but I feel that the pic meets QI crtieria. --Pdanese 21:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This photo was taken at f/9, but probably from a very close distance. Focus is on the eyes which are perfectly sharp. To me, it’s a good example of using depth of field in the way described in the COM:IG, and it’s not a problem that the bird’s beak isn’t sharp. Jakubhal 04:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I still think that the blurry head parts in the foreground are not acceptable for QI, at least for me. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jakubhal --Cvmontuy 12:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF too small, and even the sharp parts are not perfect due high ISO. --Plozessor 16:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 16:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Cipreskegels_van_een_Cupressus_sempervirens_'Stricta')._02-09-2025._(actm.)_02.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 07:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Gabriel_with_his_cousin_at_Gulbenkian_Park,_Lisbon,_Portugal_(PPL1-Corrected)_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gabriel with his cousin at Gulbenkian Park, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 18:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Bark or tree seems to be the main topic. Boys are totally blurred. --Gower 20:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    •  Info No, the boys are indeed the main subject. The idea here is to defy the conventional wisdom that the main subject should always be in focus. By blurring the boys I hide their identity while still letting the viewer see what they were doing (like in shadow puppetry) --Julesvernex2 22:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I actually like that a lot. But I sadly don't think it meets the criteria for QI, --Polinova 14:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    •  Info Indeed, I see that the QI guidelines are quite clear: "Every important object on the picture should be sharp". One could argue the rule to be nearsighted, but that's a separate discussion :) --Julesvernex2 18:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good IMO. It is intentional. A guideline is a specific principle or line that is followed in the development, organisation, etc. of something; but it is not a mandatory law. It is not a mandatory protocol, it is a guideline. --Lmbuga 04:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment For everyone, but especially for @Polinova: The problem is knowing how to act if someone does not follow the guidelines. I would do the following: See if they give reasons for breaking them, consider the reasons, and, if I find them convincing, promote them. Nothing changes.--Lmbuga 06:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info About 15 years ago, I was asked at QIC to locate an image that I nominated. I did not do so (I didn't even mention the country), and it was promoted. The image was File:Obesidade.jpg. I should not have located it for obvious reasons (see the picture).--Lmbuga 06:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 07:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

File:León_(Panthera_leo),_parque_nacional_Serengueti,_Tanzania,_2024-05-26,_DD_20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lion (Panthera leo), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 07:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 11:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but Panthera leo is soft a bit and not very detailed. --Gower 19:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit soft at full size, but ok at 2 560 × 1 707 pixels. --Sebring12Hrs 14:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The other pic in this series being evaluated in consensual review is clearly sharper than this one, but this one is just above QI threshold for me. It's a subjective judgement on so many images. --E bailey 19:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 14:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Oost-Gelre-Lichtenvoorde,_de_Sint-Bonifatiuskerk_GM1586-LT23_IMG_6601_2025-04-06_10.42.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lichtenvoorde-NL, church: the Sint-Bonifatiuskerk --Michielverbeek 06:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Llez 06:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see two problems here: verticals are slightly leaning CCW (fixable) and the upper part of the church is out of focus (unfixable). Sorry. --LexKurochkin 06:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 07:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

File:St._Francis_of_Assisi_Church._2_Franciszkańska_street,_Old_Town,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Francis of Assisi Church, 2 Franciszkańska street, Old Town, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 13:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 17:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Compression visible on the sky. Bottom cropped a bit tight. --Gower 12:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    • @Gower: , you broke this promotion without sending it to CR. --Lvova 16:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
      •  Info Compression visible on the sky. Bottom cropped a bit tight. --Gower 18:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 06:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

File:El_Kbob_Mosque.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination El Kbob Mosque is a mosque for worship and educational purposesThis is a photo of the protected monument identified by the ID 82-86 in Tunisia.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Bill.pix 21:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 21:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice photo, but not QI IMO: CAs (door), noise (or something else, sky), building cropped on the right side. The sky seems subexposed and not natural. Overprocesed IMO --Lmbuga 22:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Really tight crop, but I think, exposure is ok for the sunlit white parts of the building. Some small remains of CA exist, but not disturbing in A4 size. --Smial 12:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong noise in the sky and cropped out right part of building. --LexKurochkin 11:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 11:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambrussum_-_Pont.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ambrussum_-_Pont--JackyM59 07:42, 26 octobre 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Categories missing, geo location missing, a lot of dark shadows. Please try to fix it. --XRay 09:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Catégories done --JackyM59 13:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no. You added randomly categories, most of the red links. --XRay 08:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry that the photo ended up in the discussion. I made a mistake with the comment. --XRay 08:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support image and categories are ok now IMO. --MB-one 08:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Two of three categories are very common and should be fixed with the location. --XRay 11:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?

File:Ambrussum_-_Remparts_Celtes.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ambrussum - Remparts Celtes--JackyM59 07:42, 26 octobre 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Gower 12:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please add the categories first. --XRay 13:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Catégories done --JackyM59 13:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Again: No. Please do not add categories randomly. Have a look to COM:CAT. --XRay 08:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Sebring12Hrs 16:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: Please have a look to the categories. They are not fixed. --XRay 08:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment "Category:Ambrussum" is ok, but the others are too broad. I agree. --Sebring12Hrs 11:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Now ok. --Sebring12Hrs 02:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 02:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Oeufs_d'encornets_sur_une_plage_d'Hardelot.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Oeufs d'encornets sur une plage d'Hardelot --JackyM59 17:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Good, but without categories--Lmbuga 18:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. Categories were added by the author. --Lvova 12:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Unidentified subject: Category:Céphalopodes. Études générales is a lie false. I hope to hear from the user, but I think this is serious. The other category is Category:Mollusca. Very insufficient. Credible?--Lmbuga 21:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Correction to the previous comment caused by poor English--Lmbuga 09:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Camelus_bactrianus_skull_in_Jardim_Zoológico_de_Curitiba.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Camelus bactrianus skull in Jardim Zoológico de Curitiba --Wilfredor 01:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Nice but background is weird, partially removed, partially not, somewhere with geometric black (bat-like?) shapes. --Gower 21:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noisy and overporcessed. --Sebring12Hrs 11:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    I uploaded a new version --Wilfredor 13:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    It's way better now. Only one spot to correct, I added imagenote. --Gower 18:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @Gower and Sebring12Hrs: Please take a look te new version. Thanks --Wilfredor 18:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support now it is ok --Gower 20:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Too blurred to me. --Sebring12Hrs 22:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Gower 20:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

File:The_three_temples_of_Sbeitla_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: The three temples of Sbeitla and the arch of Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius in a landscape --IssamBarhoumi 16:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Good, but small. --Lvova 15:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
    dear Lvova I improved the file size and light have a lok please --IssamBarhoumi 20:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
     Support Thank you. Good quality. --Lvova 10:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @IssamBarhoumi we need EV here, like in first or second. Too dark. --PetarM 09:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    dear PetarM I reverted it to the second one ... I thought that with this kind of darkness there will be good focus on the temples but now it is more illuminated hve a look please --IssamBarhoumi 15:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    @PetarM I think the revertedfile was hazy although it has better light so I reedit everything to have a new file wit better light and better sharpness have look please --IssamBarhoumi 20:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --MB-one 20:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)