Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

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

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

Purpose

[edit]

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

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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

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

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

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

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

Evaluating images

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

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Good voting practices

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

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 2026.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 2026.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 15 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]] 19:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

If you are not ready to Promote or Decline an image, you may leave a Comment instead.

If someone else has already promoted or declined an image and you disagree, you may cast an opposite voice or use Discuss — this will move the image to the Community Review section.

If you agree with a previous decision, there is no need to cast the same vote again, as doing so only delays the final closure of the nomination.

Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


February 15, 2026

[edit]

February 14, 2026

[edit]

February 13, 2026

[edit]

February 12, 2026

[edit]

February 11, 2026

[edit]

February 10, 2026

[edit]

February 9, 2026

[edit]

February 8, 2026

[edit]

February 7, 2026

[edit]

February 6, 2026

[edit]

February 5, 2026

[edit]

February 4, 2026

[edit]

February 3, 2026

[edit]

February 1, 2026

[edit]

January 24, 2026

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

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

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



File:Zakopane_Dolna_Rowien_Krupowa_flower_decoration.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Porto_Covo_August_2017-4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of Porto Covo (Portugal), at the end of the day. -- Alvesgaspar 12:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 13:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
    Can we please discuss? -- Alvesgaspar 18:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs Jakubhal 05:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ilha_Pessegueiro_October_2021-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of Ilha do Pessegueiro, west coast of Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar 12:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 13:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
    Can we please discuss? -- Alvesgaspar 18:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs Jakubhal 05:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ilha_Pessegueiro_October_2021-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fortress of Ilha do Pessegueiro, west coast of Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar 12:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 13:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Can we please discuss? -- Alvesgaspar 18:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Sines_October_2021-4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of a now demolished chimneys of a disactivated power plant in Sines, Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar 12:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 13:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Can we please discuss? -- Alvesgaspar 18:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Obersaxen_Mundaun,_28-09-2025._(actm.)_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Obersaxen Mundaun View of the surroundings from Piz Mundaun
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Focus on the uniteresting foreground leads to severe loss of detail in the distance despite f/11 --MB-one 05:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Igor123121 06:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per MB-one --Tagooty 10:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support May be not the best background sharpness, but still ok IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 10:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Overall good quality. --Milseburg 11:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me Jakubhal 05:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Tail_of_a_Eurasian_wigeon_diving_underwater,_February_2026_-_3784.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tail of a Eurasian wigeon diving underwater. --Laitche 20:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Wonderful shot, but it looks like motion blurred. --Екатерина Борисова 04:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, beautiful but not sharp. --Plozessor 04:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • @Plozessor: AI sharpening filter (Topaz sharp) applied. Press Ctrl+F5 to show it. How about is this? --Laitche 05:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no. --Plozessor 12:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don’t mind if this photo is not considered QI, but recently there have been far too many images using Topaz Sharpen without any explanation in the description. I think a bit more consideration is needed. --Laitche 14:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Sure. I have no issues with AI sharpening. Just, if the picture is really blurry, it doesn't help. I did not decline your picture because you used AI sharpening, I declined it because the result does not meet QI requirements in my opinion. --Plozessor 18:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Olsztyn_nanga.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Olsztyn Castle. By User:OJ nanga --Gower 19:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Shadows too dark, imho --Юрий Д.К. 23:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.Superb light on the ruins. --JackyM59 08:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Юрий Д.К., shadows too dark, contrast to strong. --Milseburg 15:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Would support if issue with shadows will de fixed Юрий Д.К. 14:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Skimmia_japonica_2_RF.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Japanese skimmia (Skimmia japonica) --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose A lovely subject. Unfortunately, the depth of field is very shallow and does not sufficiently cover the fruiting/flowering body. --Augustgeyler 14:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the review. These are flower buds. I uploaded a new crop with better preservation of image quality (second version) and I also denoised and sharpened this version (current version). Is this better? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for editing. But esential parts are still just out focus. Your edit led to loss of detiail. --Augustgeyler 19:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. Are there other opinions? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support --Юрий Д.К. 15:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The flowers closer to the camera are sharp. Alvesgaspar 10:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 10:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 10:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Mitsubishi_Pajero_Sport_(2nd_generation)_(Brunei_2024).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mitsubishi Pajero Sport in Bruneian military service. --Pangalau 04:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadows under the car are too dark and there is a lot of chroma noise visible at the window frames of the doors --Aciarium 08:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree about the noise, but suppose it can be fixed. The tight crop (let the poor thing breathe) is a lost war of mine! -- Alvesgaspar 10:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Lau_Pa_Sat_Singapore_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lau Pa Sat, Singapore --Kallerna 18:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Distracting cars, and PC should be applied. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 18:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I have no issue with the cars. This is a busy street and cars are part of the setting. --E bailey 05:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment The idea of the composition is to show the location: busy roads and surrounded by tall buildings. I applied PC initially but I preferred the composition without. --Kallerna 06:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Warning sign Warning Please do not cancel my vote. You are not allowed to to cancel my vote. Go to CR if you disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 13:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just to rectify, I did not cancel your vote, comment was made before by E bailey. ——kallerna (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is possibly E bailey. --Sebring12Hrs 10:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Not sure what happened here, but it seems to have been corrected. No intention to cancel a vote. --E bailey 16:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 10:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Euphorbia_pulcherrima_in_an_urban_garden,_Dhaka,_Bangladesh_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A view of Euphorbia pulcherrima (Poinsettia) leaves and bracts. The image displays the characteristic veined leaf structure and the central cyathia of the plant.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This media was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Folklore 2026 international photographic contest. --A S M Jobaer 17:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Kadı 17:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark and not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 18:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs --Jakubhal 18:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs --George Chernilevsky 21:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. It is also something from the Asteraceae, possibly a Cosmos, certainly not an Euphorbia --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 13:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Moulin_du_Tertre_au_Mont-Dol_en_2014.jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment I don't think it is a fashion. Instead it is part of QI Quidelines. --Augustgeyler 00:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is part of the QI guidelines. However, it does not apply to every photo. The wording in the guidelines is usually “should” rather than “must.” -- XRay 08:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 09:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Mihrab_Bou_Inania_Madrasa_Fez_Nov25_A7CR_09158.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The mihrab, Bou Inania Madrasa, Fez, Morocco --Tagooty 04:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp and too strong noise --Jakubhal 05:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. --Sebring12Hrs 17:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree. Alvesgaspar 21:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jakubhal 05:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Cloister_of_the_Jerónimos_Monastery_in_Belém,_Lisbon,_20250604_1304_9161.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cloister (inner courtyard) of the Jerónimos Monastery in Belém (Lisbon), built in the Manueline style --Jakubhal 03:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Per QI guidelines, needs a more precise description of what is depicted --Tagooty 04:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • It is described. It is the inner courtyard --Jakubhal 05:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • It is not the full courtyard. Please indicate which part is shown here. --Tagooty 05:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • @Tagooty: This feels like nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. The description already states that this is the inner courtyard, which is a sufficiently precise and factual identification of what is shown. If we start requiring such micro-level detail (like specifying exactly which subsection or angle of a courtyard is depicted), then a large number of images currently accepted on Commons would fail the same criterion. Should your own images also be evaluated based on whether the description states from which side of the world or from which exact direction the photo was taken? --Jakubhal 07:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • COM:QIC guidelines require "an accurate description on the file page". I have stated my opinion, others may have different views. For my images, I try to give detailed descriptions. If any fall short, and someone informs me, I will correct it. --Tagooty 15:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • @Tagooty: I do try to describe and categorize my images as precisely as reasonably possible, and I have refined the description to note that this is a view of part of the inner courtyard. However, I consider requiring micro-level details such as exact subsections or viewing directions to be beyond a reasonable interpretation of the QIC requirement for an accurate description. The current wording already provides a correct and sufficiently precise identification of the subject. --Jakubhal 17:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you --Tagooty 08:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Description is ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Framing is not the best, and the shot could well have waited for the visitors to leave. Alvesgaspar 21:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jakubhal 05:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Cloister_of_the_Jerónimos_Monastery_in_Belém,_Lisbon,_20250604_1306_9170.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cloister (inner courtyard) of the Jerónimos Monastery in Belém (Lisbon), built in the Manueline style --Jakubhal 03:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Per QI guidelines, needs a more precise description of what is depicted --Tagooty 04:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • It is described. It is the inner courtyard --Jakubhal 05:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • It is not the full courtyard. Please indicate which part is shown here. --Tagooty 05:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Description is ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfectly alright to me. Alvesgaspar 21:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks for the improved description. --Tagooty 08:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Jakubhal 05:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Cloister_of_the_Jerónimos_Monastery_in_Belém,_Lisbon,_20250604_1307_9172.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cloister (inner courtyard) of the Jerónimos Monastery in Belém (Lisbon), built in the Manueline style --Jakubhal 03:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Per QI guidelines, needs a more precise description of what is depicted --Tagooty 04:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • It is described. It is the inner courtyard --Jakubhal 05:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • It is not the full courtyard. Please indicate which part is shown here. --Tagooty 05:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Description is ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor framing. Alvesgaspar 21:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Breite_Strasse_35_in_Quedlinburg_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Breite Straße 35 in Quedlinburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. --Tournasol7 04:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CAs at the contours of the roof. --Sebring12Hrs 19:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs and too intense PC leading to unrealistic geometric proportions. --Augustgeyler 13:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree also about PC. It's a shame. --Sebring12Hrs 15:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 13:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:VELO_2025,_Berlin_(P1047269).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rhino transport tricycle --MB-one 14:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 05:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)<
  •  Oppose Sorry, the background feels too cluttered and distracts from the subject. --Jakubhal 17:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Por framing looks like a random shot to me. -- Alvesgaspar 21:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Whenever I look at photos, I try to put myself in the photographer's shoes. I understand the motivation behind taking these kinds of pictures, and these kinds of pictures are certainly useful to some people. Unfortunately, it's unavoidable that some pictures may contain distracting elements especially where people gather, and therefore I try to focus only on the main subject of the image and evaluate it accordingly. In this case, the main subject is flawless and of sufficient quality for me. --Petro Stelte 20:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Petro Stelte 20:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Estrella_de_mar_granulada_(Choriaster_granulatus),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-22,_DD_143.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Granulated sea star (Choriaster granulatus), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 12:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blurred sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 14:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I made some improvements, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 19:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The outer parts are unsharp. But major areas are sharp and very detailed. --Augustgeyler 20:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 13:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

File:IMG7214_Agentur_für_Bevölkerungsschutz,_Autonome_Provinz_Bozen-Südtirol,_South_East_View,_2019.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Agentur für Bevölkerungsschutz (Agency for civil protection) of the Autonomous Province of Bozen/Bolzano, seen from the southeast. --Aciarium 00:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 12:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good scene but unrealistic proportions due to intense PC. --Augustgeyler 01:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed --Smial 14:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 13:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Raja_Isteri_Pengiran_Anak_Saleha_Hospital_in_Bandar_Seri_Begawan,_Brunei_(DSCF2080).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Hospital in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei. --Pangalau 15:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Poor detail --A S M Jobaer 15:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The image has some slightly too dark areas (e.g. the group of trees on the left), but the level of detail appears sufficient to me. --Jakubhal 17:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed. --Augustgeyler 13:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed and lacking detail --E bailey 06:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 13:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag_of_Bangladesh_in_selective_color_against_a_monochrome_forest_background.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A national flag of Bangladesh suspended by ropes in a wooded area. The image uses selective colorization, keeping the green field and red disc of the flag in vibrant tones while the surrounding trees and background are rendered in grayscale.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This media was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Folklore 2026 international photographic contest. --A S M Jobaer 22:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 20:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Selective color against a monochrome background is an artistic choice and may be acceptable, but the subject is partially not sharp. It could be motion blur or suboptimal post-processing. Blurred areas directly neighbor sharp ones (see the right part of the flag). Let's start a discussion and see what others think. --Jakubhal 17:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Jakubhal. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 13:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Varese_-_Villa_Panza_1106.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Villa Panza in Varese, Italy. --Phyrexian 14:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. Coordinates would be fine. --Milseburg 15:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 16:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: I respect the opinion but I disagree, the vertical lines are just very little converging, and from this point of view having them totally straight would result in a weird deformation of the building, it's not a facade photograph. --Phyrexian 06:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. The PC would be very easy to correct. PC should be done for that kind of architecture photo. You are far from the building. It's slightly titled, but our eyes see this. --Sebring12Hrs 06:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Phyrexian and prefer the way it is. Alvesgaspar 19:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs Jakubhal 17:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support per Alvesgaspar, but maybe it needs very moderate PC. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed and very dark shadow in foreground should be addressed. --Augustgeyler 13:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Jaafar_Abdul_Aziz_-_53858155530.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jaafar Abdul Aziz attending His Majesty's 78th Birthday Celebration in 2024. --Pangalau 15:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Quite noisy on the face and background --MB-one 15:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 15:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose But may be too noisy. Let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 02:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree that the photo is too noisy, unfortunately. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Not a studio shot, so the noise is somewhat high, but not disturbing in A4 size print. --Smial 14:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
     Question Does your opinion include the face, e.g. the eyes, where denoising is difficult? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
 Comment "not disturbing in A4 size print" --Smial 19:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per my previous comment. But still fixable IMO. --MB-one 05:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 05:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Temple_Septimien_(Djemila)_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Septimien Temple, Djemila, Algeria --Bgag 03:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, overprocessed and quite low resolution. --Plozessor 04:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done You're right. I have uploaded a new version. Please discuss. --Bgag 16:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed, new version is good. I think no need to discuss then. --Plozessor 04:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Despite the brightness, which I would reduce a bit -- Alvesgaspar 16:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still overprocessed in my opinion, with low level of real details --Benjism89 11:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good compostion. But per Benjism89: Over-sharpened and  Overprocessed. --Augustgeyler 19:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline processing. --Sebring12Hrs 10:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 10:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sat 07 Feb → Sun 15 Feb
  • Sun 08 Feb → Mon 16 Feb
  • Mon 09 Feb → Tue 17 Feb
  • Tue 10 Feb → Wed 18 Feb
  • Wed 11 Feb → Thu 19 Feb
  • Thu 12 Feb → Fri 20 Feb
  • Fri 13 Feb → Sat 21 Feb
  • Sat 14 Feb → Sun 22 Feb
  • Sun 15 Feb → Mon 23 Feb