Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.
Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages), other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Good voting practices

[edit]
  1. Do not have an image moved to consensual review ("Discuss") unless someone else added a vote with which you disagree.
  2. If you think the image meets QI criteria, use "Promotion" right away.
  3. If you think the image does not meet QI criteria and the issues cannot be solved, use "Decline" right away.
  4. If instead you believe that the issues can be solved, leave a comment without changing the status (keep it as Nomination).
  5. Do not add new votes under already promoted or declined images if you agree with the decision. The bot checks the date of the last comment, so this only delays the result.
  6. If a comment raises an unresolved issue, promoting is generally considered impolite. Only promote if the issue is clearly minor, fixed, or incorrect - and say so briefly. If you’re not sure, add a comment (don't change status). Change to "Discuss" only once conflicting votes appear.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 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 March 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 March 14 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]] 12:28, 14 March 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).


March 14, 2026

[edit]

March 13, 2026

[edit]

March 12, 2026

[edit]

March 11, 2026

[edit]

March 10, 2026

[edit]

March 9, 2026

[edit]

March 8, 2026

[edit]

March 7, 2026

[edit]

March 6, 2026

[edit]

March 5, 2026

[edit]

March 4, 2026

[edit]

March 3, 2026

[edit]

March 1, 2026

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Jan_Paweł_II_Avenue,_view_from_W,_Czyżyny,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jan Paweł II Avenue, view from W, Czyżyny, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 04:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 05:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose These branches on top left with CA's are very disturbing. Also CA's on left lamp post and on left trees (and maybe on AKF letters) & bad left crop with piece of some sign. --Екатерина Борисова 00:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: the photo has been cropped and chromatic aberration removed :) --Igor123121 06:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK, technically it looks much better now. But I also don't like this shadow all across the image. Let's wait for some other opinions. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Facade_Chiesa_dei_Gesuati_Venice_2012_2v.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Facade Chiesa dei Gesuati Venice (by Moroder) --Sebring12Hrs 01:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 02:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Just look at these ugly deformed heads of the statues in top part of facade. --Екатерина Борисова 01:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The distortion of the heads does look rather strong. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Stütings_Mühle_by_night.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stütings-Mühlenensemble in Belecke by night--SteveK 16:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 20:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Real author not named in the nomination. --Екатерина Борисова 01:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Preserved_Reptile_and_Amphibian_Specimens.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Preserved Reptile and Amphibian Specimens --Dev Jadiya 05:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tisha Mukherjee 06:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Author not named in the nomination, no categories for the subject, no proper ID of the shown specimens. I wonder what the educational value of such an image should be, even though the description claims that there is some. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:3D-Printed_Biodegradable_Human_Bone_Scaffold_3.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Mitral_Valve_Replacement.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Close_up_shot_of_an_appendix_surgery,_or_appendectomy_at_a_Hospital_in_Assam,_India_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close up shot of an Appendix surgery, or appendectomy at a Hospital in Assam, India --Dev Jadiya 05:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tisha Mukherjee 06:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Real author not named in the nomination. --Екатерина Борисова 01:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Atomic_Force_Microscope_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination This image shows a Park Systems NX-series Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) --Dev Jadiya 05:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tisha Mukherjee 06:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Real author not named in the nomination. --Екатерина Борисова 01:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Kazimierza_Kordylewskiego_Street._view_to_N,_Grzegórzki,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kazimierza Kordylewskiego street, view to N, Grzegórzki, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 04:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules Background buildings are too bright, also bad left crop. Also eye-piercing sun reflections on cars. --Екатерина Борисова 01:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Haemometer.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A haemometer is a simple laboratory instrument used to estimate the hemoglobin --Dev Jadiya 06:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tisha Mukherjee 06:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Real author not named in the nomination. --Екатерина Борисова 01:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Life_as_a_Laryngectomy.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Life as a Laryngectomy --Dev Jadiya 07:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 07:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules Real author not named in the nomination. --Екатерина Борисова 01:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image was promoted already and it is still here because of a QICbot failure to remove it --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Preserved_Coral.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Preserved Coral --Dev Jadiya 07:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support A touch on the dark side for my taste, but overall good quality. --D-Kuru 16:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Real author not named in the nomination. --Екатерина Борисова 01:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Already promoted --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:A_female_Chalky_Percher_(Diplacodes_trivialis)_-_April_2023,_Pune,_Maharashtra,_India.png

[edit]

  • Nomination A female Chalky Percher (Diplacodes trivialis) --Dev Jadiya 07:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lrkrol 09:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Real author not named in the nomination. --Екатерина Борисова 01:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image was promoted already. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Free_Education_for_Underprivileged_children.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Free Education for Underprivileged children --Dev Jadiya 13:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Is nominated for DR by the uploader/author? Uhmm... OK? --D-Kuru 16:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me, dont get what he want. Dont see any fail. --PetarM 17:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Real author not named in the nomination. --Екатерина Борисова 01:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image was promoted already. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20230107_St._Egidien_Nürnberg_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The pipe organ in the church St. Egidien in Nuremberg --FlocciNivis 11:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Could you reduce the noise? --Ermell 20:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Lrkrol 14:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy. Sorry. --Ermell 17:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Already promoted --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Médersa_Thaâlibiyya_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Madrasa Thaalibia, Algiers, Algeria --Bgag 03:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. Sorry: The most striking thing, in my opinion, is the wiring and the overall ugliness. The photo itself is good, but nobody would make a large print to display in their home. It's a horrible image: But it's not the photographer's fault.. --Lmbuga 23:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The whole building is blown out and completely lacks details. --Екатерина Борисова 03:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Lecture_du_Coran_lors_du_lancement_Concours_du_Saint_Coran_2026_en_Guinée_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lecture du Coran lors du lancement Concours du Saint Coran 2026 en Guinée By Mohamed Finando --Aboubacarkhoraa 22:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Green area and skin are very noisy. --Lvova 20:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Acceptable level of noise IMO. --Lrkrol 14:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose it fails criterion 3 : candidates should be properly categorized. No categorization at all here --Jebulon 21:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I added two categories. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you. But I still oppose, the hands of the man are terribly noisy--Jebulon 11:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Saint-Amour_-_Parc_public_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint-Amour (Jura, France) - Public garden next to Saint William's tower --Benjism89 05:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough. --XRay 06:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 08:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough.--Jebulon 11:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support This lens seems to be quite soft in the image corners, but it's still sufficient for an A4 print. In any case, I don't see that the photographer made any major mistakes with the camera settings. (ok, with a better lens, f/8 would avoid diffraction) --Smial 19:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Charlie_Barlow_at_the_2026_Adelaide_Motorsport_Festival_(028A6581).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Charlie Barlow at the 2026 Adelaide Motorsport Festival. --Pangalau 12:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 15:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes the picture is technically good, but the composition not. The microphone is hiding a part of th face and the moment of the grin is ugly to me.--Jebulon 16:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 04:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose posterized skin. Or was the woman unfortunately made up with a painter's spatula? --Smial 19:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Kadı 20:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The microphone is not the problem, but the unflattering facial expression is. When photographing public events I sometimes capture similar moments of speakers making awkward faces and I simply do not publish such shots. I also agree with Smial. Jakubhal 05:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Hausdülmen,_Ortsansicht_--_2026_--_0292-6.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Village center at twilight, Hausdülmen, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany - For your information: The nomination may be somewhat audacious. This shot (and four others) pushes the boundaries of what's possible for an amateur. A small drone (less than 250g) was used to take a series of five exposures, which were then combined into an HDR image and noise was reduced using an AI filter. --XRay 06:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 06:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules Sorry, but I disagree. It's somewhat the same problem with the other shots: 1) Much noise in large areas (fields) 2) Tree branches are turned to a mushy texture (I don't expect to see every tree branch, but the entire tree looks like it's out of focus while the area around it is sharp) 3) The roof texture of some houses is a mess of texture and colour fragmentation 4) some lights look good, some look terrible (probably the AI was not working well with them) --D-Kuru 19:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is. The trees moved in the wind, and it is a composite of five shots. This makes it difficult to capture moving objects clearly. I would like to point out once again that taking night shots with a drone like this is more than just difficult. The result alone motivates me to try it in other places. Regardless of the quality, the photo is fascinating. --XRay 14:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

File:St_Nicholas_church_in_Goettingen_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Nicholas church in Göttingen, Lower Saxony, Germany. --Tournasol7 01:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The lower window in the center is almost rectangular, as it should be, but the window above it is almost a diamond-shaped (I assume due to a strong PC), it looks unnatural. --Екатерина Борисова 03:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality to me, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 08:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • So go to CR... --Sebring12Hrs 08:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose My comment was not an opposing vote, I don't know why you sent this photo to the discussion section. But since it's here, I'll have to vote against it to comply with the rules. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I’ve noticed that omitting the photo from the CR is criticized, but including it is as well. I’m finding it difficult to navigate these requirements. What is the preferred standard moving forward? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
 Comment I would prefer to have significantly less discussion on the list and to make bolder decisions. Then the backlog wouldn't be so huge, and there would be fewer misunderstandings about whether something is meant as a comment or a vote. --Smial 19:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Palazzo_Giustinian_Michiel_Alvise_e_Palazzo_Gaggia_Canal_Grande_Venezia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palazzo Giustinian Michiel Alvise e Palazzo Gaggia Canal Grande Venezia (by Moroder) --Sebring12Hrs 09:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 10:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed dull light.--Jebulon
     Info The time stamp for Jebulon's vote should be 19:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC) according to this diff: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AQuality_images_candidates%2Fcandidate_list&diff=1177979448&oldid=1177978183 --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Palazzo_Giustinian_Michiel_Alvise_e_Palazzo_Gaggia_Canal_Grande_Venezia_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palazzo Giustinian Michiel Alvise e Palazzo Gaggia Canal Grande Venezia (by Moroder) --Sebring12Hrs 09:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 10:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed dull light.--Jebulon 19:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp overall, and right building is blurry. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Église_Saint-Didier_d'Oisy-le-Verger_(92345).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Église Saint-Didier d'Oisy-le-Verger--JackyM59 08:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • A bit dark and both sides leaning in --Poco a poco 11:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Exposure correction made. Merci --JackyM59 14:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 00:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules Right side still leaning in, look at the chimney and also the church tower --Poco a poco 09:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good IMO. The chimney is crooked because it's crooked. Otherwise, I don't see any immediate need for perspective correction.--Lmbuga 01:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • And how did you come to that conclusion? do you know the place? Looking at other images in the cat I don't have the impression that it is "crooked" --Poco a poco 14:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Rettungswagen_BRK_Sprinter-20180805-RM-173219.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bavarian Red Cross ambulance on a mission in Franconian Switzerland --Ermell 08:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Shutter speed was a bit too low --Poco a poco 11:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion the image is good enough. The background is meant to be blurred by motion. The car and the writing on the side are a little bit blurred by motion. However, the driver is fully in focus and you can even see that he is wearing glasses (therefore the motion of the vehicle is not bad). Considering this is QI and not FP this is IMHo good enough. --D-Kuru 16:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Poco, the car is motion blurred. Alvesgaspar 15:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Action shot, sharp enough for an A4 size print, regarding the resolution. --Smial 10:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 13:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment The image of the day of 2026-03-09 is a QI, a FP and is probably a strong contender for VI for „motion blur“. Boss, how much motion blur shell we put in? ... Yes! - Yes, THAT much motion blur. I think we should may keep this in mind. --D-Kuru 16:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes of course, we have to promote every blurred picture of motorcycles, trains, planes, cars.... because image of the day of 2026-03-09 is VI, QI and FP, you are right, we are stupid... --Sebring12Hrs 17:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I never said anything about being stupid, but if Sebring12Hrs feels that way it's also fine for me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In case I wasn't clear enough with what I wrote: My point is that opposing the image because of the car being a bit blurry does not hold up that well compared against QI&FP images that are blurred much more. To re-mention it: The driver is not blurred as much as eg. the writing on the car. The car tires (neglecting rotational blur), the blue lights and the step at the back entry are also no blurred as much as you would expect by looking at the writing (so the writing might be misleading here regarding overall sharpness aka: a bad paint job). Considering the EXIF data (f/5 at ~170 mm) we would get roughly 4m DOF at a distance of 20m to the subject and roughly 1m DOF at 10m distance. This should at least somewhat cover the left side of the car if the driver is in focus. It might be interesting if the 'bluryness' of the image might be related to algorithm used for demosaicing the image. --D-Kuru 19:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Relax: I'm the only stupid person in the world: I like the photo and I think it's good. --Lmbuga 00:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me.--Jebulon 20:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me – Julian Lupyan 22:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   – Julian Lupyan 22:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Kilitbahir_Castle_(29072023)_-_53079133350.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kilitbahir Castle --Kadı 19:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 20:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The seems compressed and dust spot at the left top. --Sebring12Hrs 00:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. The big dust spot needs to be corrected. I think a perspective correction could be made.--Lmbuga 00:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @Kadı: The spot is a no-go ! this picture is correctible ! --Jebulon 20:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Jebulon, Sebring12Hrs, Lmbuga, I cropped the dust spot. Any other suggestions?--Kadı 20:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Anything about perspective correction?--Lmbuga 19:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Pez_payaso_de_cola_amarilla_(Amphiprion_clarkii)_en_una_anémona_magnífica_(Heteractis_magnifica),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-21,_DD_131.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Clark's anemonefish (Amphiprion clarkii) in a magnificent sea anemone (Heteractis magnifica), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 07:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose There is lack of sharpness and detail on the body around the eye. Also, see color noise along the white and black stripes of the fish. --E bailey 06:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version but anyhow I find the sharpness of the eye very good for underwater --Poco a poco 19:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now Юрий Д.К. 15:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 06 Mar → Sat 14 Mar
  • Sat 07 Mar → Sun 15 Mar
  • Sun 08 Mar → Mon 16 Mar
  • Mon 09 Mar → Tue 17 Mar
  • Tue 10 Mar → Wed 18 Mar
  • Wed 11 Mar → Thu 19 Mar
  • Thu 12 Mar → Fri 20 Mar
  • Fri 13 Mar → Sat 21 Mar
  • Sat 14 Mar → Sun 22 Mar