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 June 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 June 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 June 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]] 08:00, 11 June 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).


June 11, 2026

[edit]

June 10, 2026

[edit]

June 9, 2026

[edit]

June 8, 2026

[edit]

June 7, 2026

[edit]

June 6, 2026

[edit]

June 5, 2026

[edit]

June 4, 2026

[edit]

June 3, 2026

[edit]

June 2, 2026

[edit]

June 1, 2026

[edit]

May 31, 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:Anemone_hepatica_Печёночница_благородная.jpg

[edit]

File:Klingen_Klingbachstraße_13_002_2026_05_20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Natural monuments linden trees (Tilia species) in Klingen
    --F. Riedelio 09:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 10:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    I disagree. Some artefacts in the leaves on the right side to fix. --Milseburg 15:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Klingen_Klingbachstraße_13_003_2026_05_20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Natural monuments linden trees (Tilia species) in Klingen
    --F. Riedelio 09:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 10:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Weird artifacts in the sky. --Espandero 13:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Great_crested_grebe_(Podiceps_cristatus)_juvenile_Haff_Reimech_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) juvenile --Charlesjsharp 08:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion Category "Podicipediformes of Luxembourg" not properly fixed by the nominator. As usual. --A.Savin 08:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Support Category is now fixed, image is of good quality --Jakubhal 03:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Great_crested_grebes_(Podiceps_cristatus)_juvenile_with_adult_Haff_Reimech_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) juvenile with adult --Charlesjsharp 08:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion Category "Podicipediformes of Luxembourg" not properly fixed by the nominator. As usual. --A.Savin 08:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Support Category is now fixed, image is of good quality --Jakubhal 03:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Great_crested_grebe_(Podiceps_cristatus)_juvenile_Haff_Reimech.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) juvenile --Charlesjsharp 08:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion Category "Podicipediformes of Luxembourg" not properly fixed by the nominator. As usual. --A.Savin 08:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    * Support I fixed the category, please check. The quality of the picture is high. --Harlock81 10:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Great_crested_grebes_(Podiceps_cristatus)_juvenile_with_adult_Haff_Reimech.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) juvenile with adult --Charlesjsharp 08:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion Category "Podicipediformes of Luxembourg" not properly fixed by the nominator. As usual. --A.Savin 08:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Support Category is now fixed, image is of good quality --Jakubhal 03:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Greylag_Geese_(Anser_anser)_in_flight_Haff_Reimech.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Greylag Geese (Anser anser) --Charlesjsharp 08:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion Category "Anseriformes of Luxembourg" not properly fixed by the nominator. As usual. --A.Savin 08:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Support Fixed now by me. The quality of the picture is very high. --Harlock81 10:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Pie_grieche.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pie grieche sur un arbustreMoi, 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 07:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Lvova 17:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Nominated twice on June 9 & June 10, supported on June 10. --Екатерина Борисова 01:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Pamphagus_sp_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pamphagus sp sur une planteMoi, 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 07:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 10:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Lvova 17:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Nominated twice on June 9 & June 10, supported on June 10. --Екатерина Борисова 01:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Nosy_Antanimora,_Madagascar,_2025-09-15,_DD_14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nosy Antanimora, Madagascar --Poco a poco 06:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Sensor Dust left --Grunpfnul 06:46, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 06:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Sensor dust spots aren't good quality... --Grunpfnul 08:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Comment @Grunpfnul: Your observation of a minor dust spot was not visible to me at the time of review - no doubt this will be resolved by the author so have suspended my support in the meantime. --Scotch Mist 09:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    There is one big and more minor spots visible --Grunpfnul 15:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Not really that big. It isn#t a gross mistake by the reviewer or by me to oversee that. Like German people say, let's leave the church in the village Poco a poco 18:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Reinstated support --Scotch Mist 07:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Poland_2025_519_Chochołów_-_Sculptor_Jan_Zięder.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Master Wood Sculptor Jan Zięder at work --Scotch Mist 06:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Slight blurry, a shame -1/3 Stop or ISO 800 and above would have helped to freeze the movement --Grunpfnul 06:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Comment @Grunpfnul: Craftsman "at work" - believe minor 'motion blur' of active craftsman's hand should be acceptable for QI and would be interested to learn the opinion of others in discussion. --Scotch Mist 09:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Common_tern_(Sterna_hirundo)_with_common_roach_(Rutilus_rutilus)_Haff_Reimech.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common tern (Sterna hirundo) --Charlesjsharp 14:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Pangalau 00:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    Category "Charadriiformes of Luxembourg" not properly fixed by the nominator. As usual. --A.Savin 08:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Comment ✓ Done by me. Please, check. --Harlock81 10:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Common_terns_(Sterna_hirundo)_fighting_Haff_Reimech.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common tern (Sterna hirundo) --Charlesjsharp 14:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Pangalau 00:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    Category "Charadriiformes of Luxembourg" not properly fixed by the nominator. As usual. --A.Savin 08:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
     Comment ✓ Done by me. Please, check. --Harlock81 10:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kościół_św._Michała_Archanioła_w_Sieroszowie_(10).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wall around Saint Michael Archangel church in Sieroszów 1 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 16:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Unfortunate composition with lots of grass in the foreground and the church cut off. --Plozessor 03:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
    I disagree, the photo shows a fragment of the wall around the church --Jacek Halicki 14:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kościół_św._Michała_Archanioła_w_Sieroszowie_(11).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wall around Saint Michael Archangel church in Sieroszów 2 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 16:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Composition problem. The church isn't entirely in the frame. I'm sorry, but it seems as though the subject of the photo is the tree. --Lmbuga 02:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
    I disagree, the photo shows a fragment of the wall around the church --Jacek Halicki 14:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Falaises_côtières_et_eau_turquoise_du_Cap_Zebib.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Falaises côtières et eau turquoise du Cap Zebib Bizerte --Smailtn 08:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 14:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No useful categories for the image. Also some parts are overexposed. --Екатерина Борисова 00:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Barrage_el_Masri.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Barrage el Masri Grombalia --Smailtn 08:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  SupportSlight white fringe along the top of the mountains, but good enough .--Jebulon 17:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No categories. --Екатерина Борисова 00:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 08:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Statue_in_Foirail_Public_Garden_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue in Foirail Public Garden in Rodez, Aveyron, France (by Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 05:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 05:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The chroma noise should be reduced --Poco a poco 05:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
     Comment So it's an implicit oppose, you can't cancel a promotion vote without using an opposing vote. --Sebring12Hrs 06:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
    Assumed opposition per QI rules. --Harlock81 08:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:The_Eternal_Question_in_Light_Square_in_May_2026_(DSCF7239).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Eternal Question in Light Square in May 2026. --Pangalau 06:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 13:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp --Plozessor 03:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Severin,_París,_Francia,_2022-10-29,_DD_111-113_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Saint Severin, Paris, France --Poco a poco 08:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Perspective distortion, correction is needed --F. Riedelio 08:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
     Support I don't see any vertical distortion or any unacceptable distortions in the picture that prevent the photo from being QI. --Lmbuga 02:23, 9 June 2026(UTC)
  •  Support Good for QI. But this is not the Saint Severin church. This is only the pipe organ of etc...--Jebulon 17:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:National_September_11_Memorial,_World_Trade_Center,_Manhattan,_New_York.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Reflecting pool of the National September 11 Memorial (“Reflecting Absence”, Michael Arad) at the World Trade Center; the Oculus of the World Trade Center Transportation Hub at right. --Espandero 10:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Sorry, but the very short exposure time and resulting high ISO lack too much quality for me for this motiv --PantheraLeo1359531 17:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
    PantheraLeo1359531: this is a 66 MP stitch up of 4 photos. I fail to see what the ISO and fast shutter speed mean in this scenario. It was a rainy day so 500 ISO was helpful. It's not that high ISO for this camera, and quality seems fine to me on full screen. Could you please detail your vote? Thanks --Espandero 17:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
     Info It should go to CR section because the author disagrees with the vote. --Екатерина Борисова 01:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
    I think the problem is that this workflow may reach more megapixels, but a single shot with longer exposure time and lower ISO could have reached lower noise and a higher level in detail. Also, if you look at the sky, the noise distribution looks unnatural. Especially at building edges, you can see more noisy and less noisy areas in the sky. But the problem can be found across the sky. --PantheraLeo1359531 08:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
    PantheraLeo1359531: Thank you for your detailed answer. I understand that lower ISO means less noise when the light is normal, and I see the weird patches of noise in the sky (which I cannot explain), but only when zooming in quite a lot. When opening the picture to full resolution and zooming in the noise only shows when the zoom is quite extreme. I will look into polishing the sky in the image but I still feel this is a bit of a harsh assessment of this image given the global quality. --Espandero 09:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
    Noise in the sky is corrected. --Espandero 16:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support The short exposure time was apparently necessary. Sharp enough regarding the resolution. --Smial 14:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Lmbuga (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image. --PetarM 15:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --PetarM 15:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:_Бабочку_рода_Melitaea_(шашечница).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Checkerboard butterfly of the genus Melitaea --26D 10:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Ktkvtsh 05:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose (tempotarily) The insect should be categorized properly. --Екатерина Борисова 01:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I added some categories. -- 26D 05:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Flamant_rose_Radès_Méliane.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flamant rose, Lac Radès Méliane --Smailtn 08:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. -- 26D 10:38, 05 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are no categories. --Екатерина Борисова 01:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low Quality-unsharp, such pics become much-much better today. --PetarM 15:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --PetarM 15:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Бабочка_желтушка_в_Зааминском_национальном_парке.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A yellow butterfly in Zaamin National Park--26D 06:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 06:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (temporarily) Category for the butterfly is missing. --Екатерина Борисова 02:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I added a few categories and highlighted a few. --26D 06:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
      • Please, check if it may belong to the species Colias erate. I performed a search by image. I'm not an entomologists. --Harlock81 07:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
        • The genus Colias includes an entire genus of butterflies (the so-called "yellows"). Colias erate is a distinct species within this genus. Distinguishing Colias erate is difficult due to its similarity to other yellows (such as Colias crocea or Colias hyale), which causes debate among qualified entomologists.(Sorry, I'm not an entomologist either.)--26D 07:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would expect much better with that good camera, also crop isnt favourable. --PetarM 15:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Bottle_Gourd_Flower_Bud.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A flower bud from bottle gourdI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2026. By User:Sabiha Nabiha --R1F4T 07:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 18:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  for now I corrected the botanical category (hopefully), but there should be some meaningful approximate location, at the very least the name of the protected area where the image was taken (see the respective category!) --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose This picture is better than the other one. However, the bud is not completely in focus. A bit doubtfully, I think that its quality is just below the level of QIs. --Harlock81 08:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 08:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Susan_Close_at_the_Hugh_Stretton_Oration_2026_(DSCF7304).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Susan Close at the Hugh Stretton Oration 2026. --Pangalau 02:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Red eyes. Fixable. I don't understand how it can be QI with such an obvious error. --Lmbuga 04:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    Red eyes have been fixed. --Pangalau 07:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose lacks detail. --MB-one 16:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Better now Lmbuga 18:09, 8 June 2026
  •  Oppose Still not up to QI. Flash, crop, sharpness. --Mile (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --PetarM 15:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

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