Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

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

Purpose

[edit]

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

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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

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

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

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

Evaluating images

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

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Good voting practices

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

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 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 July 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 July 07 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]] 08:18, 7 July 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).


July 7, 2026

[edit]

July 6, 2026

[edit]

July 5, 2026

[edit]

July 4, 2026

[edit]

July 3, 2026

[edit]

July 2, 2026

[edit]

July 1, 2026

[edit]

June 30, 2026

[edit]

June 29, 2026

[edit]

June 28, 2026

[edit]

June 27, 2026

[edit]

June 26, 2026

[edit]

June 25, 2026

[edit]

June 24, 2026

[edit]

June 23, 2026

[edit]

June 21, 2026

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

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

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



File:Federa_lake.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dawn on Lago Federa. By User:Scosse --Civvì 12:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 13:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprosessed? There's white line between the mountains and the sky. --Екатерина Борисова 03:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great view! But, poorly edited in the postprocessing -- Jakubhal 06:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2026_-_Blooming_poplar_in_Kolomenskoe.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2026 - Blooming poplar in Kolomenskoe --Юрий Д.К. 23:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Over processed --Vitorperrut555 02:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
    I disagree. The only processing here is cropping and maybe a spot removing --Юрий Д.К. 07:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think it is overprocessed, but a lot of the blooms are overexposed Jakubhal 06:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2026_-_Dyakovsky_orchard,_Kolomenskoe.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2026 - Dyakovsky orchard, Kolomenskoe --Юрий Д.К. 23:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Over processed --Vitorperrut555 02:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
    @Vitorperrut555: Assumed opposition (oldid 1244196212), but please, may you confirm it? --Harlock81 (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me --Jakubhal 04:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I only made the shadows brighter a bit here, very contrast scene. No significant processing. Юрий Д.К. 07:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose looks oversaturated. --Smial 11:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Very usual sunny day, quality photo. Lvova 16:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Lvova 16:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2026_-_Kolomenskoe_on_a_hot_summer_day2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2026 - Kolomenskoe on a hot summer day --Юрий Д.К. 23:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Over processed --Vitorperrut555 02:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Over processed --Vitorperrut555 02:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me --Jakubhal 04:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  • I only made the shadows brighter a bit here, very contrast scene. No significant processing. Юрий Д.К. 07:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  • weak  Support some overexposed small details in the background, but I think it's tolerable. --Smial 11:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Lvova 16:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Lvova 16:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Giovane_stambecco.jpg

[edit]

  •  Support Good quality. --Harlock81 08:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Kirche-St.-Suitbertus-Kaiserswerth-2026.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Southwest view of the Basilica of St. Suitbertus in Kaiserswerth, Düsseldorf, Germany. --Tuxyso 07:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 08:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Extreme geometric distortion. -- Alvesgaspar 13:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 06:00, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Lvova 16:25, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Lvova 16:25, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Moment_Before_the_First_Light.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The journey to Larke Pass begins in the quiet hours before dawn. By User:Sangyam adventurer --Nirmal Dulal 11:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 10:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do not know how natural this location looks, but it seems to me that the photo is too dark and too blue (WB issue?). Also there's something wrong with the sky. --Екатерина Борисова 04:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, WB and the very strong contrast isn't well handled. --Smial 11:25, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Scilla_-_Spiaggia_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Scilla (Calabria, Italy) - The beach, along Christopher Columbus street --Benjism89 07:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blurred faces. Specially blurred, but why to nominate then. --Lvova 10:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, I blurred people's faces on this picture, as I do with all the pictures I upload to Commons with recognizable strangers' faces. There was a discussion about this and it seems to me that the general consensus is that blurring faces, when people are not in the foreground (so that you don't see the blurring at first sight) but still recognizable because of the high resolution of the pictures we nominate here, is OK. --Benjism89 14:48, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
    I took a look into the discussion, but it contains some things that cannot be counted, like 'should be made wisely'; I also took a look at other your pictures with blurred faces. I think that even if we have a consensus about theoretically possible blurring, it is worth discussing exactly this example. Lvova 16:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 16:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

File:McDonough_Memorial_former_location_(New_Orleans).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination McDonough Memorial former location in Lafayette Square in New Orleans --Ktkvtsh 21:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 23:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Perspective should be corrected. --Plozessor 03:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Hiking_on_Mount_Olympus_38.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Previously unassessed. --Lvova 12:55, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Add a one-line explanation of what this file represents, please. Poor description, poor categorisation; sorry, random file? Aren’t you telling us what it is because it’s not interesting?--Lmbuga 00:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
    Aren't you making drama? No means no, but you don't say just no. Lvova 10:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for letting me live. --Lmbuga 22:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
    Wow, I thought it's impossible to make more dramatic. Lvova 11:26, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
    Is there no one close to you who can explain what I’m saying? --Lmbuga 02:26, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
    Any other person around says things normally. Did you hear that it's not a place for drama when you're voting against? Can you cope with a normal review? If not, don't do it. Lvova 16:22, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

 Info Since there's a discussion it should go to CR section. --Екатерина Борисова 03:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  • No, it should not. I wrote that no means no, so the only reason to bring it here is to let people read that I'm against agressive rudeness in reviews. Lvova 11:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
    I’m being called rude. Oh well! Thanks: I actually find you quite likeable. --Lmbuga 02:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality images should contain adequate info about the subject. Alvesgaspar 14:06, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Any parts of the image where the algorithm found nothing to sharpen appear blurred. Neither the filename, the image description, nor the categories provide a clue as to what we are seeing there. --Smial 11:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Volvo_EW140D.jpg_

[edit]

  • Nomination Volvo EW140D heavy machine -- Mrshaxas 20:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Red and green CA's on the bucket and on the ground, the vehicle itself is not sharp, also I miss the category of location here. I think we have pretty high standards for pictures of vehicles and stationary objects, and this photo doesn't fit into those standards at all. --Екатерина Борисова 01:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp. Alvesgaspar 16:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Château_d'Yvoire_seen_from_the_gardens,_Yvoire,_Haute-Savoie.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Château d'Yvoire, a 14th-century castle overlooking Lake Geneva, with its large quadrangular keep and pepperpot corner turrets, seen from the village gardens against the lake and the Vaud shore. Haute-Savoie, France. --Espandero 14:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp. --Berthold Werner 18:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
    Berthold Werner: I find your vote very harsh given the problem you point out is not visible in full frame, only when zooming quite a lot. --Espandero 18:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Berthold Werner. Not 'zooming a lot', just 'a full size'. Lvova 10:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above, probably unfocused. -- Alvesgaspar 14:08, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info Berthold Werner, Lvova and Alvesgaspar: I've uploaded a new version, taken from a different file 9 seconds before. Thanks, Espandero 21:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Плато_Ассы_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the Assy plateau in the Almaty nature reserve. Enbekshikazakh district, Almaty region, Kazakhstan. --Красный 05:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 06:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, lack of details. You should have chosen a much slower shutter speed (1/4000s !) and maybe a wider aperture (f/20) to avoid this ISO 6400 --Benjism89 06:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted, unsharp. -- Alvesgaspar 14:09, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Arvid_Lindblad_at_the_Red_Bull_Fan_Zone_–_Crown_Riverwalk,_Melbourne_(028A7869).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Arvid Lindblad at the Red Bull Fan Zone – Crown Riverwalk, Melbourne. --Pangalau 03:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CAs (for example, between the black and white edges of the clothing at neck level). Blurred hair. --Lmbuga 01:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  • IMO these are not CAs, it's the light from the background. -- XRay 05:29, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  • I think both are happening. The background light is light blue with greenish tints at the top (cyan). The strip I’ve pointed out is clearly violet ou purple. I’ve downloaded the photo and managed to remove almost all of that purple strip, so I could upload a new version. (@Pangalau: , @XRay: ) --Lmbuga 22:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 10:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Old_Parliament_House_in_Adelaide,_June_2026_(028A7182).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Old Parliament House in Adelaide, June 2026. --Pangalau 03:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong purple CA's everywhere (building, branches, wires etc.). --Екатерина Борисова 03:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above. -- Alvesgaspar 16:27, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 10:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Ломонос_и_папоротник_на_горе_Олимп.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Leather flower and a fern at Mount Olympus. Central Macedonia, Greece. --Красный 12:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 19:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ID insufficient and miscategorized. The flower does not look like Clematis even remotely and there is no appropriate ID for the fern either. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
    • Do you have any suggestions? Mine have stopped at what you are seeing. Красный 18:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Flower is unfocused. Alvesgaspar 16:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 09:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Moscow_2026-05-25_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mokhovaya Street in Moscow --Perituss 19:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Espandero 20:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB seems to be off here. --Екатерина Борисова 02:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor framing. Why not wait for the people on the left to leave? Looks like a random shot. -- Alvesgaspar 16:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB and framing per others. --Plozessor 07:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 07:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Сирень_в_Южно-Приморском_парке_20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Syringa vulgaris in Yuzhno-Primorsky Park, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lack of sharpness on the main flower clusters when viewed at full size. There are also noticeable compression artifacts and noise in the shaded green leaves, which limits the technical quality required for QI. --Igor123121 08:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
    I'm inclined to agree with you, but since you're only opposing my photos and no one else's, I'd like to hear other opinions expressed without bias. --Екатерина Борисова 02:43, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm also not entirely happy with the noise performance—or rather, the noise reduction—but the overall sharpness and depth of field are more than sufficient for an A4 print. --Smial 11:56, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Old_Parliament_House_in_Adelaide,_June_2026_(028A7185).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Old Parliament House in Adelaide, June 2026. --Pangalau 07:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poconaco 07:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burned out sky and CA's on tree make this image not QI in my eyes. --Екатерина Борисова 02:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burned sky. -- Alvesgaspar 16:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Kazan_Bauman_Str_45_House_2024-07-14_1613.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gagayev's House, Baumana street 45, Kazan --Mike1979 Russia 05:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not a QI with this trash bin in the foreground, sorry. Also lacks PC --Benjism89 05:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
    I deleted the trash using AI and improved the perspective --Jacek Halicki 06:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
    Although I must admit you made a convincing job, I'm not comfortable with edits that remove something that was in the photographed scene to "imagine" what would have been visible if they weren't there. This is a picture of a place that exists in reality and maybe there is a manhole cover behind this bin, maybe the bottom of the door doesn't look like this, etc. So I'll stick to my oppose vote --Benjism89 17:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The effect is pretty good. You can compare the result with the picture of the same building on Google Maps, for instance. In the correction, there are very limited misrepresentations of the step at the entrance of the building, and of the road paving very close to it. Details that are not seen if you are not searching for them. Anyhow, I think it is worth to explicitly state it in the description. --Harlock81 12:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Alvesgaspar 16:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 12:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Amirsoy_Mountain_Resort122.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The view of the mountains from the cable car at Amirsoy Mountain Resort --Panpanchik 18:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Definitely not a QI of whatever is behind the window. Not sure whether this nom is a kind of joke. --Poco a poco 21:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I think this is an interesting picture, although its quality may be debatable. So let's discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 03:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Something different, capturing well the subject: the rain drops on the window. -- Alvesgaspar 09:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Very, very weak  Support When I saw the photo, I didn't know what to make of it at first. For an abstract photo, the background is still too clear; for raindrops as the subject, there are too many; for the background, it's too blurry. In other words: I'm still undecided. But: I like the idea. I think including the pane covered with raindrops is creative. Ergo: A small, very small plus. -- XRay 15:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the supporting votes. The "mountains view" does hardly fulfill any of the QI requirements. If the subject would be water drops on a glass, then I would be open to discuss, but this is definitely no qI of whatever is behind the glass. --Poco a poco 23:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No clear subject. --Zinnmann 08:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Zinnmann -- Jakubhal 05:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2_guepiers_de_Perse.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2 guepiers de Perse sud tunisienMoi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été importée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Earth 2026. --Skander zarrad 09:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The left bird and branch blurry. May be ok cropped to show only the right bird. --Tagooty 09:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I find this gives depth of field and puts the bird in its environment. --JackyM59 09:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support per JackyM59. --Harlock81 12:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Tagooty -- Alvesgaspar 09:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 12:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Oberau_Mainaue_See-20260530-RM-160218.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mittelsee in the Mainaue Nature Reserve near Oberau in the Lichtenfels district --Ermell 14:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 09:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (temporarily) Purple CA's in upper right corner. --Екатерина Борисова 01:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the hint.--Ermell 14:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 14:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Cerfs_élaphes_el_Feija.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: cerfs élaphes femelles, el Feija Aïn Soltane Jandoub --Smailtn 08:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 06:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Where is the focus? --Lvova 11:29, 27 June 2026
    Where it should be - on the two animals on the right? --ArildV 06:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)(UTC)
    They are not in focus. Lvova 16:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Overall good also for me. --Harlock81 07:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft. -- Alvesgaspar 16:00, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Harlock81 08:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Mon 29 Jun → Tue 07 Jul
  • Tue 30 Jun → Wed 08 Jul
  • Wed 01 Jul → Thu 09 Jul
  • Thu 02 Jul → Fri 10 Jul
  • Fri 03 Jul → Sat 11 Jul
  • Sat 04 Jul → Sun 12 Jul
  • Sun 05 Jul → Mon 13 Jul
  • Mon 06 Jul → Tue 14 Jul
  • Tue 07 Jul → Wed 15 Jul