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]

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

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

Evaluating images

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

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

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Good voting practices

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

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

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

How to execute decision

[edit]

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

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

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

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

If declined,

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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 11 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]] 16:16, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

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

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

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

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


August 11, 2026

[edit]

August 10, 2026

[edit]

August 9, 2026

[edit]

August 8, 2026

[edit]

August 7, 2026

[edit]

August 6, 2026

[edit]

August 5, 2026

[edit]

August 4, 2026

[edit]

August 3, 2026

[edit]

August 2, 2026

[edit]

August 1, 2026

[edit]

July 30, 2026

[edit]

July 27, 2026

[edit]

July 26, 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:St._Mary_and_St._Moses_Coptic_Orthodox_Church,_Windsor,_Ontario,_2026-08-07_01.jpg

[edit]

File:CIBC,_Windsor,_Ontario,_2026-08-07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination CIBC (1395 Ottawa Street), Windsor, Ontario, 2026-08-07 --Crisco 1492 14:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose perspective correction make lamppost arrear leaning left --Pierre5018 14:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
    Cropped. --Crisco 1492 14:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Alex_Pole_Dancer_at_'Euphoria'_Party,_Windsor-Essex_Pride_Festival,_Windsor,_Ontario,_2026-08-07_17.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Alex Pole Dancer at 'Euphoria' Party, Windsor-Essex Pride Festival, Windsor, Ontario, 2026-08-07 --Crisco 1492 14:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support --Pierre5018 14:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
    It's a white LED screen. What do you expect? No detail is lost; the individual nodes are still apparent. --Crisco 1492 14:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Pierre5018 18:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Pierre5018, you can't delete your previous comments and change vote from oppose to support the way you did it here. Please read the rules carefully. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
    •  Comment I really don't know what the best course of action would be here. Should we send it back up (with the photographer's consent), re-nominate it, and delete the mess here? Trying to track down and revert the changes in the history would be a Sisyphean task. I do occasionally fix simple editing errors (like syntax corrections), but repairing the back-and-forth mess surrounding this candidate is just too much work for me—sorry. --Smial 11:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Mammoth_Hot_Springs_(78875).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Liberty cap at Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone National Park --Rhododendrites 13:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 14:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose blown highlights --Pierre5018 14:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 17:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Mammoth_Hot_Springs_(78836p).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone National Park --Rhododendrites 13:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    blown highlights at the top, otherwise excellent --Pierre5018 14:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
     Support High technical quality. Refraction of light to be expected from mist. --Crisco 1492 14:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 17:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
     Support Very good, highlights but nothing looks blown to me --Benjism89 17:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
     Support per Benjism89. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Nosy_Iranja,_Madagascar,_2025-09-17,_DD_16.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nosy Iranja, Madagascar --Poco a poco 13:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 13:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I can't see nothing but a huge white spot in the bottom half of the image. I believe that the sand is very bright in this place, but we deserve to see more details. --Екатерина Борисова 01:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина. I cannot judge the matter of the sandy beach due to a lack of familiarity with the area, but unfortunately, the surf's spray is also overexposed—and I consider that an essential part of the subject matter. --Smial 11:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Steam_locomotive_K_190_during_the_2026_Steamrail_Open_Day_at_the_Newport_Railway_Workshops_in_Newport,_Melbourne.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Locomotives on display at Newport Workshops during Steamrail's Open Weekend, March 2026. By User:LostplanetKD73 --Takerlamar 06:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sky is burn out, sharpness is poor --Poconaco 06:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
    I don't see neither problems with the sky (it's cloudy) nor with sharpness. However, it's unclear wether the creator is a Wikimedia. Sending to CR in the meantime. --MB-one 09:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Lej_da_Segl_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lej da Segl near Maloja during the winter season, municipality of Bregaglia, canton of Grisons, Switzerland. --Tournasol7 06:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Rione Colonna 10:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Too bright, the snow looks like just a white piece of paper with almost no details. --Екатерина Борисова 01:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Kuen_suburqaghy,_Astana_(P1190766).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kün suburqaghy on the Esil River in Astana --MB-one 20:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 21:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I just want to leave a comment but after it is already promoted I changed to discuss: Have you thought of a different crop? IMHO the composition with >50% water ist imho very unfortunate. You photographed at 60mm - thus enough zoom range should be still available. --Tuxyso 21:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
    •  Comment Implicit oppose per rules -- Smial 12:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The main subject is depicted really quite small, and if you crop the image to frame it better, you're left with significantly less than 6 megapixels. The image description and categorization are also poor; I’ve wasted a fair amount of time on Google just trying to figure out what it actually is. --Smial 12:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2026-07-12_02_Great_blue_heron_(Ardea_herodias_fannini)_fluffing_-_WA_USA.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great blue heron (Ardea herodias fannini), fluffing to dry its feathers at the shore at Port Townsend, Washington USA. --GRDN711 22:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose underexposed, dark, and not sharp enough, sorry --George Chernilevsky 21:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Disagree with your assessment. This is not the boring light of high noon; it is the last of the golden light at the end of the day. Sharpness based on a good combination of ISO, f-stop and shutter speed, is quite acceptable. --GRDN711 23:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice in thumbnail but poor image quality: lack of sharpness, noise, lack of detail. -- Alvesgaspar 07:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC
  • Weak  Support. A little less image noise would have been nice, but I find the photo certainly sharp enough for an A4-sized print. Yes, the lighting is unusual, but I don't think the photographer did anything wrong here. --Smial 12:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

File:2026-07-12_01_Great_blue_heron_(Ardea_herodias_fannini)_hunting_-_WA_USA.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great blue heron (Ardea herodias fannini), wading along the shore at Port Townsend, Washington USA. --GRDN711 22:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose underexposed, dark, and not sharp enough --George Chernilevsky 21:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Disagree with your assessment. This is not the boring light of high noon; it is the last of the golden light at the end of the day. Sharpness based on a good combination of ISO, f-stop and shutter speed, is quite acceptable. --GRDN711 23:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As in the previous one. Unsharp, lack od detail. Alvesgaspar 07:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unlike the other candidate, the focus here is unfortunately not quite right; the head and beak are too blurry. --Smial 12:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

File:British_Airways_A320,_Frankfurt_(20260412-P1074993).jpg

[edit]

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

File:Giradabo_at_Tibidabo_amusement_park_in_Barcelona.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Giradabo ferris wheel at Tibidabo amusement park in Barcelona --IM027 10:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Fl.schmitt 13:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed (blown out parts) and not very sharp IMO. Also questionable composition (too much sky). --Екатерина Борисова 01:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Out of focus. Alvesgaspar 12:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Out of focus, composition Jakubhal 04:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think the composition is bad at all; it’s certainly a valid approach. It is admittedly a bit overexposed. The focus setting was likely not the issue; what we are seeing here is almost certainly the effect of diffraction caused by the aperture being set too narrow (high f-number). The camera used has a pixel pitch of 3.7µm, but the diffraction disk at f/18 is already about 13µm, i.e., several pixels in size, even with a hypothetically perfect lens. Unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise, for subjects like this, you should stop down to no more than f/8 or, at most, f/11. --Smial 13:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Kaliakra_IMG_140603549.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kaliakra, Bulgaria --Pibwl 16:17, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --S.Marchenko 17:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but level of detail is low, image was overprocessed by the smartphone. And there are overexposed areas --Benjism89 21:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
    Assumed opposition. --Harlock81 07:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Aplucas0703 02:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks great as a thumbnail, but level of details is really poor in full size view. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Benjism89 and Catherine. --Sebring12Hrs 19:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:49, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

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

[edit]

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

File:East_face_of_Jiujiu_Peaks.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination East face of Jiujiu Peaks in central Taiwan. --Tiouraren 16:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 18:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice landscape, but nothing is in focus here, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова: no part of the picture is sharp enough for QI --Sandro Halank 10:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: @Sandro Halank: The image was already in focus, and I have uploaded a sharpened version with Sharpen and Shake Reduction filters applied. --Tiouraren 16:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would support the very first version, though I don't understand the high ISO setting. I don't like sharpening artifacts. --Smial 07:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
    • @Smial: The initially nominated version had actually been sharpened and was sharp enough to me, but since it was not considered sharp enough, I applied additional filters to make it even sharper. This image was a combination of ±2 EV bracketing, and the raw frames were captured under 105 mm without a tripod, so I applied ISO-640 to avoid motion blur. --Tiouraren (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Weak  Support. Thanks for the detailed explanation. While I remain convinced that it would have worked at ISO 200—resulting in slightly less image noise and consequently less post-processing effort—I don't want to downvote the image, given its appealing composition, lighting, and beautiful colors. In any case, thanks to the high resolution, the image is good enough to meet my notorious A4 print size criterion. --Smial 12:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
@Smial: Appreciate the support. And yes, a lower ISO setting should have worked better. Please feel free to let me know if there is any space for improvement. --Tiouraren 13:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I believe the quality is sufficient. --gog.creator (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --gog.creator (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Mon 03 Aug → Tue 11 Aug
  • Tue 04 Aug → Wed 12 Aug
  • Wed 05 Aug → Thu 13 Aug
  • Thu 06 Aug → Fri 14 Aug
  • Fri 07 Aug → Sat 15 Aug
  • Sat 08 Aug → Sun 16 Aug
  • Sun 09 Aug → Mon 17 Aug
  • Mon 10 Aug → Tue 18 Aug
  • Tue 11 Aug → Wed 19 Aug