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]

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 January 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 January 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 January 23 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]] 05:29, 23 January 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).


January 23, 2026

[edit]

January 22, 2026

[edit]

January 21, 2026

[edit]

January 20, 2026

[edit]

January 19, 2026

[edit]

January 18, 2026

[edit]

January 17, 2026

[edit]

January 16, 2026

[edit]

January 15, 2026

[edit]

January 14, 2026

[edit]

January 13, 2026

[edit]

January 12, 2026

[edit]

January 11, 2026

[edit]

January 10, 2026

[edit]

January 9, 2026

[edit]

January 8, 2026

[edit]

January 7, 2026

[edit]

January 6, 2026

[edit]

December 30, 2025

[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:Stemma_Simbolo_di_Alessandro_Sergardi_vescovo_di_Montalcino_posto_sull'esterno_della_Abbazia_di_Sant'Antimo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Coat of Arms Symbol of Alessandro Sergardi, Bishop of Montalcino, placed on the exterior of the Abbey of Sant'Antimo. -- Anna.Massini 10:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Anna.Massini
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 12:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Borderline sharpness. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 17:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Алматы,_ущелье_Аюсай,_герань_лесная.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wood Crane's-bill in Ayusai gorge. Ile-Alatau national park, Bostandyk District, Almaty, Kazakhstan. By User:ElenaLitera --Красный 06:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Argenberg 12:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose for now for misidentification. This does not look at all like Geranium sylvaticum. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Mury_miejskie_w_Radkowie_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Defensive walls in Radków 1 --Poconaco 19:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 19:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Temporarily oppose because of wrong signature. The author is Jacek Halicki, not Poconaco. --Екатерина Борисова 03:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Zespół_zamkowy_w_Ratnie_Dolnym_(01).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castle and park in Ratno Dolne 1 --Poconaco 19:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 20:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Temporarily oppose because of wrong signature. The author is Jacek Halicki, not Poconaco. --Екатерина Борисова 03:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Park_zamkowy_w_Ratnie_Dolnym_(02).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castle and park in Ratno Dolne 2 --Poconaco 19:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 20:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Temporarily oppose because of wrong signature. The author is Jacek Halicki, not Poconaco. --Екатерина Борисова 03:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Kaplica_cmentarna_w_Radkowie_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cemetery chapel in Radków 1 --Boston9 10:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Pangalau 13:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose The author is Jacek Halicki, not Boston9. Thus, we see 15 photos by Jacek, nominated on January 21: five photos have Jacek as the author, five have Boston9 and five more have Poconaco. This is at least strange, but at most unfair. --Екатерина Борисова 03:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Kaplica_cmentarna_w_Radkowie_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cemetery chapel in Radków 2 --Boston9 10:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 19:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose The author is Jacek Halicki, not Boston9. Thus, we see 15 photos by Jacek, nominated on January 21: five photos have Jacek as the author, five have Boston9 and five more have Poconaco. This is at least strange, but at most unfair. --Екатерина Борисова 03:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Denver,_Colorado_(2025)_-_45.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 19th Street Bridge, Denver, Colorado --Another Believer 04:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 19:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
    Low level of detail and a bit noisy --Jakubhal 06:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose And PC not done. --Sebring12Hrs 20:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Milan,_Italy_-_December_2025_-_144.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ponte delle Sirenette, Milan, Italy --Another Believer 04:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
    Overprocessed --Jakubhal 06:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Jakubhal. --Sebring12Hrs 20:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Basilique_du_Sacré-Cœur_2026-01-03-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Basilique du Sacré-Cœur in Paris, France --ReneeWrites 22:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 23:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Dust spot. See note. Otherwise good. --Sebring12Hrs 21:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Kłodzko,_ul._Matejki_1_(6).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Kłodzko,_ul._Grottgera_1_(1).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Kłodzko,_ul._Grottgera_1_(2).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Kłodzko,_ul._Grottgera_1_(3).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Falkenstein,_Selketal_(November_2024).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Falkenstein Castle from the Selke Valley in the Harz Mountains --Romzig 19:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality, picturesque --Gower 10:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think that WB is not good and it's underexposed for the daytime shot, but maybe I'm wrong. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 06:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the underexposure is deliberate. I like the mood and the picturesque style. Alvesgaspar 14:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support May be underexposed a bit, but no WB problems imho Юрий Д.К. 17:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed, low detail due to noise reduction, JPG artifacts. Nice lighting, colours and composition. --Smial 18:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial. --Plozessor 05:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed and posterized sky. BigDom 09:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 09:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Ścinawka_Średnia,_pawilon_ujęcia_wody_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Well in Ścinawka Średnia 1 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 15:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment purple fringing to fix --Gower 12:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @Gower: In 2K resolution I don't see it, vote no, I'd like to ask for a discussion.Jacek Halicki 08:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jacek request --Gower 19:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree --Jacek Halicki 11:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment The purple fringing is at the very top of the roof, on the wood hanging off the side, as well as a bit on the trees on the left – Julian Lupyan 00:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough. --Smial 16:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support agree about CA but imho acceptable level of it Юрий Д.К. 17:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   – Julian Lupyan (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2024_Kłodzko,_ul._Matejki_1_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 1 Matejki Street in Kłodzko 2 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 17:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose shlight PC needed --Gower 18:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see where is needed here. QI to me. --Sebring12Hrs 19:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Discuss.... --Sebring12Hrs 19:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs Please make up your mind whether you want to support or oppose ;) --Plozessor 15:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Left side not perfectly sharp, but in general good. --Plozessor 15:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
     Comment The implicit opposite vote is of course about Gower comment. How can you think it was me who voted against? To avoid voting on promotion over his comment, I sent it to CR. --Sebring12Hrs 19:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Sure, I guessed something like that. Still there was a supporting and an opposing vote from you, which needed to be fixed (as you have done). --Plozessor 05:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft, DJI can do better. Alvesgaspar 15:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality imho Юрий Д.К. 18:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 15:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Пушкин._Александровский_парк._Белая_башня,_деталь01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lion statue on the terrace of White Tower pavilion in Tsarskoe Selo (bottom-up view), Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 00:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose needs PC, bad composition (socle is cut) --RomanM82 23:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Not everything that is taken at an angle needs PC. I know wery well that everything is always asked to be straightened out here, but I'd like to hear other opinions. --Екатерина Борисова 01:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment You have my simpathy, I am surely against this (not so) recent fashion of bringing all vertical parallel. On this case, the problem seems to be another one: needs a slight cw rotation. Alvesgaspar 11:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment PC is not needed here imho, while noise reduction is. Юрий Д.К. 15:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Юрий Д.К.: I tried to reduce the noise. @Alvesgaspar: I aligned the picture to the bottom of the balcony (it's like a balcony, and therefore it has no socle), it's parallel to the frame, so it doesn't seem to me that rotation is needed here. Thanks you both for your reviews. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree that "not everything that is taken at an angle needs PC", but this pictures does. Actually it seems to be rotated, since both the left and right side are leaning to the left. I could accept a 'natural' perspective, that for an upward view would mean that both sides are leaning in. But that is not the case here, the left side is leaning out, the right side is leaning in, or the whole image is just rotated. --Plozessor 15:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Believe me, I didn't rotate this picture at all, just slightly aligned it to the bottom, by a degree or so, but otherwise it is as it is. Of course, this is not a call for you to change your mind and vote for it, but just a kind of explanation. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I did not mean that you rotated the picture in postprocessing but that probably the camera was not straight when you took it. In any case, the wall on the right side is leaning to the left, but things at the left side are also leaning to the left. --Plozessor 05:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Got it. But what's wrong with taking an angle shot with both sides tilted to the same direction? If they were leaning in different directions, it wouldn't be good. :) -- Екатерина Борисова 03:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  • It just doesn't look good, especially with the wall on the right edge. I would clearly support this picture if the verticals would be verticalized. --Plozessor 04:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Common_reed_(Phragmites_australis),_Jardins_Garcia_de_Orta,_Parque_das_Nações,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common reed (Phragmites australis), Jardins Garcia de Orta, Parque das Nações, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 17:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition: too much cut-off from the top for my taste --Aciarium 17:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • The top crop is meant to emphasise the symmetry of the reed and its water reflection. Showing the sky and background would break that symmetry --Julesvernex2 08:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ok, this cut is not a problem to me. ́et's hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 18:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Imho, the composition works: not the portrait of whole plants, but a view from a position close to the water. Interesting the waving effetct of the reflections. The quality is good. --Harlock81 21:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good indeed. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good Юрий Д.К. 15:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good – Julian Lupyan 01:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Giles Laurent 09:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   – Екатерина Борисова 03:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Pez_loro_(Scarus_quoyi),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-21,_DD_174.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rusty parrotfish (Scarus ferrugineus), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 10:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry. Seems to have some type of blur / LoD. --Pdanese 13:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Implied support per rules Good quality. --Igor123121 15:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for an underwater shot, IMO. BigDom 08:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurred indeed. The closest fin is out of focus. Alvesgaspar 00:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 04:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 15 Jan → Fri 23 Jan
  • Fri 16 Jan → Sat 24 Jan
  • Sat 17 Jan → Sun 25 Jan
  • Sun 18 Jan → Mon 26 Jan
  • Mon 19 Jan → Tue 27 Jan
  • Tue 20 Jan → Wed 28 Jan
  • Wed 21 Jan → Thu 29 Jan
  • Thu 22 Jan → Fri 30 Jan
  • Fri 23 Jan → Sat 31 Jan