Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 01 2025

- Nomination Former inner-German border, now "Alstegrund" nature reserve --Plozessor 03:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination "Free weeds for self-picking!" sign Jesserndorf --Plozessor 03:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Gleisenau castle church --Plozessor 03:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Corner of the Bleiloch reservoir in Thuringia --Plozessor 03:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Two fly agaric (Amanita muscaria) -- George Chernilevsky 03:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Fly agaric (Amanita muscaria) -- George Chernilevsky 03:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Maize field on a slope near the village of Mizyakiv. Ukraine -- George Chernilevsky 03:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Maize field on a slope near the village of Mizyakiv. Ukraine (2) -- George Chernilevsky 03:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Golden Scalycap mushrooms (Pholiota aurivella) in clusters -- George Chernilevsky 03:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Door in Casas Reais street, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain. --Lmbuga 23:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Could you make the details in the doorway brighter, please? I'm curious to know what's inside :) --Екатерина Борисова 23:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Done Thank you--Lmbuga 23:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Support Good quality, thank you. --Екатерина Борисова 23:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Bench. Exterior of the church of San Martiño do Grove. Galicia (Spain). --Lmbuga 23:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 23:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Pskov Kremlin (evening view), Pskov, Russia. By User:Елена Нечипоренко --Екатерина Борисова 22:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 23:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Vologda Kremlin (morning view), Vologda, Russia. By User:Елена Нечипоренко --Екатерина Борисова 22:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 23:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Pavlovsk Palace (view from Slavyanka river valley), Pavlovsk, Saint Petersburg, Russia. By User:Игорь Гордеев --Екатерина Борисова 22:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 23:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Erminia statue in Pavlovsk Park, Pavlovsk, Saint Petersburg, Russia. By User:Игорь Гордеев --Екатерина Борисова 22:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 23:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Rhododendron in Primorsky Park of Victory, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 22:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 23:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Pipe organ of Georgskirche in Ettlenschieß, Lonsee, Alb-Donau-Kreis, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Installed in 1965, Walcker Opus 4839, model “Positiv E”. --AFBorchert 22:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 23:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Turkey tail mushroom (Trametes versicolor) -- George Chernilevsky 21:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 23:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Fly agaric (Amanita muscaria) (2) -- George Chernilevsky 21:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 23:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Maize field on a slope near the village of Mizyakiv. Ukraine -- George Chernilevsky 21:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 23:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Golden Scalycap mushrooms (Pholiota aurivella) in clusters -- George Chernilevsky 21:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 23:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Hilaire’s side-necked turtle (Phrynops Hilarii) --Charlesjsharp 21:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 21:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Lancia Delta Integrale at Motortreff Bella Italia 2024 at Motorworld Munich --MB-one 21:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 23:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Chevrolet El Camino SS at Brussels Auto Show 2024 --MB-one 21:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 23:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Opening session of WikiCon 2023 in Linz, Austria --MB-one 21:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Umarxon III 23:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Airbus H145M at ILA Berlin Air Show 2024 --MB-one 21:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 23:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Teatralny fountain - Moscow --Юрий Д.К. 20:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Felis catus, 2025 --Boaventuravinicius 20:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline
  Oppose Not in focus, noisy, CA --Poco a poco 21:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination St. Peter's Church in Wörlitz: View of the altar --Romzig 19:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline
  Oppose Lacks detail, sorry --Poco a poco 21:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination sooty copper (Lycaena tityrus) on a meadow in the Kröllwitz district of Halle (Saale) --Romzig 19:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 20:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Gasr MednineCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 82-39.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Cheima fezzani 18:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 23:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Saint Vladimir I of Kiev church in Krynica-Zdrój --Jakubhal 17:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 18:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Parkowa Mountain in Krynica-Zdrój, view from the hiking trail to Jaworzyna Krynicka --Jakubhal 17:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 23:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Parkowa Mountain in Krynica-Zdrój, view from the hiking trail to Jaworzyna Krynicka --Jakubhal 17:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 23:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Grumman F9F Cougar at Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, NYC (by Jakubhal) --Sebring12Hrs 17:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 23:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Homelessness cardboard boxes, Avenida Guerra Junqueiro, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 17:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 17:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Group of friends seen through iron railings, Biblioteca das Galveias, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 17:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 21:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Green peach aphid (Myzus persicae) on a leaf, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 17:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 17:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Green peach aphid (Myzus persicae) on a stem, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 17:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 17:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Brynek palace gatehouse. --Gower 16:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 16:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Bytom, Assumption church. --Gower 16:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 16:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Bibio marci, female, Poland. --Gower 16:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 17:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination A photo of Toyama Station taken in the evening, with a local bus in frame.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Davekern 16:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --AFBorchert 22:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination The former wash house Lavaderos El bebedero de la furnia in Icod de los Vinos --FlocciNivis 15:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 18:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination View from the Calle el Barranco up to the over 300 years old Dracaena draco tree, named Drago de San Antonio, in Icod de los Vinos, Tenerife, Spain --FlocciNivis 15:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Maybe more space above would have been better, and the sky is not appealing. However, the quality is good, and the subject interesting. Thanks. --Harlock81 19:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination View from Tabaiba Alta in El Rosario, Tenerife, Spain, on the Atlantic Ocean. The island Gran Canaria is visible at the horizont --FlocciNivis 15:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Gower 17:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Hollowroot in the FFH-area Isarauen von Unterföhring bis Landshut in Marzling --FlocciNivis 15:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 18:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Ships at the Lake Tegel. The biggest of them is the Jugendforschungsschiff Cormoran --FlocciNivis 15:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 17:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Support Good quality. --Gower 17:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Petit port à marée haute en Côte d'Armor près de PLOUGUERNEAU --JackyM59 15:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Gower 17:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Jerdon's Bullfrog, Hoplobatrachus crassus, from Coochbehar, West Bengal --Herpking 15:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline
  Oppose Lack of detail, distracting leaf in the foreground. --Gower 17:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Black-headed Ibis preening from Purbasthali, Burdwan --Herpking 15:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline
  Oppose Not sharp, red CAs... --Sebring12Hrs 22:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Peru pavilion at Kolkata Book Fair 2014 --Herpking 15:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline
  Oppose Not sharp, CAs, perspective... --Sebring12Hrs 22:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Batasia Loop, Darjeeling, West Bengal, India --Herpking 15:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline
  Oppose Sorry, but strong tilt, perspective distortion, too dark, and also some minor noise --Jakubhal 17:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Artists' Lake late in the evening. Taigish Valley, Ergaki Range, Sayan Mountains. --Argenberg 14:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 15:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Shamanic ritual poles at Cape Burhan, Olkhon Island, Lake Baikal. --Argenberg 14:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. Very nice picture --JackyM59 15:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Saraisky Beach in Olkhon Island, Lake Baikal. --Argenberg 14:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 16:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Wish tree at sunset. Olkhon Island, Lake Baikal. --Argenberg 14:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 18:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Goéland dans la Réserve naturelle nationale des Sept-Îles --JackyM59 14:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Polinova 14:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination View of Stična abbey. --Miha Peče 13:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Gower 17:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Emaus Methodist Church, Flint --BigDom 13:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 14:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination The Ship Hotel, Flint --BigDom 13:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 13:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Wing foiler, Rondeau Bay, Ontario, 2025-07-06 --Crisco 1492 11:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Slight noise is visible in the sky, but OK --LexKurochkin 12:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination St. Peter's Catholic Church, Tilbury, Ontario, 2025-07-06; sculpture of crucifixion in cemetery --Crisco 1492 11:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 12:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination St. Peter's Catholic Church, Tilbury, Ontario, 2025-07-06; rose window --Crisco 1492 11:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 12:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination St. Peter's Catholic Church, Tilbury, Ontario, 2025-07-06; corner stone --Crisco 1492 11:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 12:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Sunshine Drugs, Blenheim, Ontario, 2025-07-06 --Crisco 1492 11:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 12:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination 13 Bohaterów Getta Street in Kłodzko 1 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 11:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 12:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination 13 Bohaterów Getta Street in Kłodzko 2 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 11:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Pdanese 11:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination 13 Bohaterów Getta Street in Kłodzko 3 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 11:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 12:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination 9 Bohaterów Getta Street in Kłodzko 1 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 11:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 14:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination 9 Bohaterów Getta Street in Kłodzko 2 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 11:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 14:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Detail of the staircase on the Obradoiro façade. Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, Galicia (Spain). --Lmbuga 11:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 12:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Detail of the staircase on the Obradoiro façade. Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, Galicia (Spain). --Lmbuga 11:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Pdanese 11:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Detail of the staircase on the Obradoiro façade. Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, Galicia (Spain). --Lmbuga 11:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 12:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination American Red Squirrel. Pleasant Valley Wildlife Sanctuary. Lenox, MA USA --Pdanese 11:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 11:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Great Blue Heron, closeup. Keeney Cove, Glastonbury, CT USA --Pdanese 11:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 11:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Support Good quality. --E bailey 11:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Red-tailed Hawk scanning for prey. Hockanum River Linear Trail, East Hartford, CT USA --Pdanese 11:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 11:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Great Blue Heron. Wethersfield Covel Wethersfield, CT USA --Pdanese 11:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support I'd have gone with a wide crop at the bottom, but good quality. --Crisco 1492 12:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Juvenile Blue-winged teal. Keeney Cove, Glastonbury, CT USA --Pdanese 11:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --E bailey 11:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Portrait of a juvenile Egyptian goose (Alopochen aegyptiaca). --Alexis Lours 10:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Pdanese 11:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination A great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) swimming. --Alexis Lours 10:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 10:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 11:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination A great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) swimming. --Alexis Lours 10:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 10:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 10:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination A carrion crow (Corvus corone). --Alexis Lours 10:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 10:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 10:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination A juvenile herring gull (Larus argentatus) in flight. --Alexis Lours 10:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Slightly soft, but given the difficulty of the shot I feel like it's acceptable. --Crisco 1492 12:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Borovitskaya tower from Sofia embankment --Юрий Д.К. 09:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Mike1979 Russia 11:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Ksar El Krikriya in Mednine in Tunisia --IssamBarhoumi 09:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 16:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Ksar El Mhadha in Mednine in Tunisia --IssamBarhoumi 08:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 16:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Islam Khodja madrasa and minaret. By User:Panpanchik --Lvova 08:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 12:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Islam Khodja madrasa and minaret. By User:Panpanchik --Lvova 08:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Pdanese 11:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Ismail Samani Mausoleum. By User:Panpanchik --Lvova 08:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 12:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Octogonal Pavilion of Sitori-i-Mokhi Khosa palace. By User:Panpanchik --Lvova 08:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Pdanese 11:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Octogonal Pavilion of Sitori-i-Mokhi Khosa palace. By User:Panpanchik --Lvova 08:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Gower 17:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Lion (Panthera leo), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 07:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Excellent - the photo tells the story of the landscape. --Herpking 15:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Lion (Panthera leo), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 07:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Herpking 15:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Lion (Panthera leo), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 07:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Lion (Panthera leo), Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania --Poco a poco 07:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Peulle 07:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Lion (Panthera leo), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 07:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Peulle 07:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Cluny (Saône-et-Loire, France) - View of the remains of the abbey church (and recent buildings) from what used to be the entrance of the narthex. The abbey church was, from 13th to 15th century, the largest religious building in Western Christianity --Benjism89 07:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Cluny (Saône-et-Loire, France) - View from the Cheeses Tower - The abbey palace of Jack of Amboise, current town hall --Benjism89 07:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination 7 Bohaterów Getta Street in Kłodzko 1 --Jacek Halicki 07:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 19:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination 7 Bohaterów Getta Street in Kłodzko 2 --Jacek Halicki 07:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 07:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination 13 Bohaterów Getta Street in Kłodzko 1 --Jacek Halicki 07:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 07:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 07:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination 13 Bohaterów Getta Street in Kłodzko 2 --Jacek Halicki 07:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination 13 Bohaterów Getta Street in Kłodzko 3 --Jacek Halicki 07:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Aerial view of Autenhausen --Ermell 06:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Eicher EM200 (1958) Tiger with Rasspe cutter bar --Ermell 06:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Fendt 716 Vario with Güttler prism roller on a field in Franconian Switzerland --Ermell 06:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Entoloma conferendum mushroom in the Bruderwald forest in Bamberg --Ermell 06:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Sandstone column near Unterstürmig --Ermell 06:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Allegorical statue of a river --Romainbehar 06:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 07:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 07:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Apartment building, Mushtari street 30, Kazan --Mike1979 Russia 06:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Baratynsky Manor main house, Gorky street 25A, Kazan --Mike1979 Russia 06:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 23:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Hotel at 4, Khoja Porso street, Bukhara, Uzbekistan. --Красный 06:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Mike1979 Russia 15:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Maghoki Kurpa mosque. Bukhara, Uzbekistan. --Красный 06:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Gower 17:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Manhole cover at Zakhidov street. Bukhara, Uzbekistan. --Красный 06:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 06:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Harreveld-NL, windmill: molen Hermien --Michielverbeek 06:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 07:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 07:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Harreveld-NL, windmill: molen Hermien --Michielverbeek 06:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 07:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Varsseveld-NL, windmill: molen De Engel --Michielverbeek 06:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Argenberg 14:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Varsseveld-NL, windmill: molen De Engel --Michielverbeek 06:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Gower 17:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola), Massa River, Souss-Massa National Park, Morocco --Tagooty 06:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality --Michielverbeek 06:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Massa River near the beach, Souss Massa National Park, Morocco --Tagooty 06:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 07:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Panorama of Ouirgane village and Yacoub el Mansour dam from southeast, Al Haouz province, Morocco --Tagooty 06:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 07:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Ouirgane village and Yacoub el Mansour dam from SE, Al Haouz, Morocco --Tagooty 06:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 10:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Black-necked Stork (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus) in Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 06:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Black-necked Stork (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus) in Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. Useful to make the description more precise "... with fish in beak". Also CAT for left-facing or right-facing bird. --Tagooty 06:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Black-necked Stork (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus) in Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline
  Oppose Not sharp enough. Sorry. --LexKurochkin 14:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Black-necked Stork (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus) in Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 07:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Black-necked Stork (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus) in Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. Useful to make the description more precise "... standing in water". Also CAT for left-facing or right-facing bird. --Tagooty 06:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination “United Kleinbasler 1884” in Basel Tattoo Parade 2025. By --Ahmet Düz 05:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Oppose Blurred, tilted and CAs --Jakubhal 17:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline {{{2}}}
- Nomination "21st Grey Coat Batallion Fife and Drum Corps" in Basel Tattoo Parade 2025. By --Ahmet Düz 05:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Oppose Blurred, tilted and CAs --Jakubhal 17:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline {{{2}}}
- Nomination "Basel Police Band" in Basel Tattoo Parade 2025. By --Ahmet Düz 05:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Oppose Blurred, CAs, overexposed --Jakubhal 16:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline {{{2}}}
- Nomination Former bicycle units of the Swiss Army. Historical cyclist company with bicycle 93 in Basel Tattoo Parade 2025. By --Ahmet Düz 05:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Oppose Blurred, tilted, CAs --Jakubhal 16:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline {{{2}}}
- Nomination "Great Highland Bagpipes" in Basel Tattoo Parade 2025. By --Ahmet Düz 05:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  Oppose Blurred and CAs --Jakubhal 16:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline {{{2}}}
- Nomination Bukhara,Sitorai Moxi-Khossa Complex. Wall decor in the guest pavilion.-- 26D 05:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline
  Oppose Very interesting object, but not sharp enough, sorry. --Gower 17:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Right valve of a Banded Wedge Shell, Donax vittatus --Llez 05:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 06:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Pumpkin festival in the garden of Ludwigsburg Palace, Germany --Llez 05:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Ermell 06:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Pumpkin festival in the garden of Ludwigsburg Palace, Germany --Llez 05:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 06:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Flowering heather in heathland in Groote Zand nature reserve in Hooghalen Forestry.
  --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Llez 05:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Sign for the beach chair field L, Norderney, Lower Saxony, Germany --XRay 04:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Saint Leodegar chapel of the La Palice Castle in Lapalisse, Allier, France. --Tournasol7 04:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination La Palice Castle in Lapalisse, Allier, France. --Tournasol7 04:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Tropsztyn Castle overlooking Czchów Lake, Wytrzyszczka, Lesser Poland Voivodeship --Jakubhal 04:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Exterior details of Kronstadt Naval Cathedral, Kronstadt, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Gower 17:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Gothic 14th-century wall paintings with scenes of the passion in Georgskirche Ettlenschieß, Lonsee, Alb-Donau-Kreis, Baden-Württemberg, Germany --AFBorchert 23:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lvova 09:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Soluta Mountain Tea in the Garden of the El Portillo Visitor Center in Los Realejos, Tenerife, Spain --FlocciNivis 22:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Gasr JouamaaCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 82-37.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Cheima fezzani 21:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Gower 17:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Ksar El MhadhaCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 82-72.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Cheima fezzani 21:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline Not sharp enough --Michielverbeek 06:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Siemianowice Śląskie, 55 Śląska street, brick wall. --Gower 16:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lvova 09:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Planetarium Śląskie in Chorzów. --Gower 16:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline Not sharp enough --Michielverbeek 06:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination 6 Bohaterów Getta Street in Kłodzko 3 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 13:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lvova 09:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Relief of Kronstadt Naval Cathedral, Kronstadt, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline
  Oppose Not sharp enough, sorry. --Gower 17:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Armstrong Siddeley Star Sapphire Saloon at Classic-Gala 2025 --Alexander-93 16:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline
  Oppose The back side is strange (maybe it's possible to say blurry). --Lvova 09:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Gasr MednineCette photo décrit un monument historique protégé en Tunisie et identifié par l'ID 82-39.Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :Cette image a été versée dans le cadre de Wiki Loves Monuments 2025. --Cheima fezzani 16:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Compo is fine, could be sharper. --PetarM 16:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Sons of England World War I Memorial, Tecumseh Park, Chatham, Ontario, 2025-07-06 --Crisco 1492 11:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination “Frolicking” people, shortly before the "Basel Tattoo Parade". By --Ahmet Düz 05:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  Oppose Weak sharpness, CAs --Jakubhal 04:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline {{{2}}}
- Nomination Roadside shrine in Potworów 1 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 14:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Lysandra coridon,Olsztyn (Jura), Poland. --Gower 07:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality --Tagooty 06:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Lion (Panthera leo), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 07:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn Nominated twice by mistake Poco a poco 21:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination Gray brocket deer (Mazama gouazoubira) at the Curitiba Zoo. A medium-sized South American cervid species, identified by its reddish-brown coat, simple two-point antlers, and crepuscular activity. --Wilfredor 03:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Moscow - 2025 - Andreyevskaya Embankment, Sergey Kapitsa Street --Юрий Д.К. 13:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Moscow - 2025 - A cluster of marigolds in a flower bed near GUM --Юрий Д.К. 13:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Consulate of Croatia in Kotor / Montenegro --Imehling 09:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  It is leaning a bit. --Sebring12Hrs 10:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC) Done --Imehling 19:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 23:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Four Domes Pavilion in Wrocław. --Gower 06:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Thick-walled maze polypore (Fomitopsis quercina) on a stub -- George Chernilevsky 19:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Clock Tower of Kotor / Montenegro --Imehling 12:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Lvova 09:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Sea foam washed up on the beach, Norderney, Lower Saxony, Germany --XRay 04:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --Gower 21:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
  I like that image, the composition and the play with bokeh are good (if needed: Support). In fact, I'd prefer this image over a similar candidate from 2 weeks ago, the artistical (for lack of a better word) quality is higher. That said, I am a bit puzzled. I certainly see a sharp area, where the foam bubbles lie the most in a shadow (follow the white track from bottom right until you reach the first dark area). But this area of scharpness does not extend linearly, it rather looks like a more or less rounded sharpness area. It's an interesting phenomenon, I think that's attributable to pecularities of the used telephoto lens. --Grand-Duc 21:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  So it is a contra and we need a discussion or is it a comment and back to pro? --XRay 07:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  Comment Perhaps as additional information: The photo was taken with a slight telephoto lens. The focus plane is actually even. However, what creates a slightly rounded effect are the iridescent colors caused by the low sun. This creates a rather rounded play of colors. I hope it's OK if I reset to “support.” There are two pro votes. --XRay 06:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination: Öjeby kyrka --Brackenheim 19:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Review
  Please, apply a vertical perspective correction, there is also CA in the tree --Poco a poco 20:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination: Tenement house, 13 Krakowska street, Wesoła, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 19:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Review
  Windows cat missing --Poco a poco 20:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  Horizontal alignment is needed. --Екатерина Борисова 23:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Incinerator building in Bytom. --Gower 16:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 12:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination: File:Extérieur Mosquée el Kbob avec puit au premier plan --Atef Ouni 10:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Review
  The foreground with this piece of something is very blurry. --Екатерина Борисова 23:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination: A completed Apé, shortly before opening. By--Ahmet Düz 04:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Review
  Burnt highlights in the background while main subject is in shadow. Might be acceptable though if the strong CAs where fixed --Benjism89 16:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Austin Cooper Mini in Berlin --MB-one 11:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline
  Compression visible in dark areas, too tight crop. --Gower 10:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)* Oppose Compression artefacts.--Peulle 07:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination Dome of Church of the Transfiguration at Spaso-Yevfimiyev Monastery, Suzdal --Vsatinet 17:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- Promotion
  Generally good, but, how about reduction of burned whites and little red halo over the edges? --Gower 06:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  Done Let's try so. --Vsatinet 11:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  Still visible on the tower's left wall. --Lvova 12:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC) Support Good enough for you, godunov for me. Otherwise use some f/11 on zoom. --PetarM 10:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nomination 1995 Nissan Primera 2.0Tm S Selection --TTTNIS 13:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Decline
  Looks like the denoising killed the detail. If you still have raw data available. Maybe it's fixable with better noise reduction. --MB-one 13:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC) Not done in over a week.--Peulle 07:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Consensual review

File:Kyriad_Hotel_Orly_Athis-Mons_Oct25_A7CR_07980.jpg

Nomination Kyriad Hôtel Orly Aéroport - Athis Mons, wide view, Essonne, France --Tagooty 08:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline
Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 15:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Sebring12Hrs: Done --Tagooty 18:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- Info With the implicit oppose, moving to CR for review of the improved version. --Tagooty 06:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined --Sebring12Hrs 02:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Kyriad_Hotel_Orly_Athis-Mons_Oct25_A7CR_07979.jpg

Nomination Kyriad Hôtel Orly Aéroport - Athis Mons, Essonne, France --Tagooty 08:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline
Oppose Underexposed ? --Sebring12Hrs 15:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done Raised exposure --Tagooty 20:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- Info With the implicit oppose, moving to CR for review of the improved version. --Tagooty 06:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined --Sebring12Hrs 02:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:École_primaire_de_Villers-au-Tertre.jpg

Nomination École primaire de Villers-au-Tertre--JackyM59 07:02, 25 octobre 2025 (UTC)
Decline
Info Perspective correction is needed. Walls should be verticals. --Sebring12Hrs 10:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose As Sebring, too strong PC. --Gower 09:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Done Corrections done --JackyM59 10:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose PC not well done at left. In addition, the contrast is very high, the picture appears overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 23:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined --Sebring12Hrs 02:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Closed_wing_resting_activity_of_Lethe_vindhya_(C._&_R._Felder,_1859)_-_Black_Forester_WLB_DSC_8190.jpg

Nomination Closed wing resting activity of Lethe vindhya (C. & R. Felder, 1859) - Black Forester. By User:Rijuroy89 --Atudu 01:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline
Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Poor quality, textures lacking detail. Compression highly wisible, but ISO is low, so quality could be better. --Gower 17:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Compression artefacts.--Peulle 07:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined --MB-one 08:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Le_Monument_français_de_1897_à_Tournai.jpg

Nomination Le Monument français de 1897 Place de Lille à Tournai --JackyM59 17:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline
Done Ok, but needs perspective correction --Imehling 18:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment A bit dark at left, but I would support if perspective is improved, per Imehling. --Sebring12Hrs 22:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Info Thanks for the advices --JackyM59 08:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done Corrections done --JackyM59 16:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  - Oppose The perspective wasn't improved in the second version. In addition, the crop you did, doesn't convince me. If you decide to go to CR, I have to decline, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 20:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The statue is too soft, the head is blurry without details. Sorry. --LexKurochkin 07:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined --Peulle 08:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Blastocerus_dichotomus_in_Jardim_Zoológico_de_Curitiba.jpg

Nomination Marsh deer (Blastocerus dichotomus) --Wilfredor 14:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Promotion
Oppose A little backlit and shadow are a little distracting, especially on the face. --Polinova 15:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Support The shadow on the head is really distracting, but it is an animal, it would not be posing for ideal shot. Backlit works to show fur. The photo is not ideal, but IMO good enough for QI. Let's discuss. --LexKurochkin 12:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
weak support Not sure about the white balance; it seems a bit off, but that could be the actual colour of the river. Sharpness is fine.--Peulle 07:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted --MB-one 08:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:"Europejski"_Hotel,_5_Lubicz_street,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

Nomination "Europejski" Hotel, 5 Lubicz street, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 16:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline
Oppose Underexposed. --Sebring12Hrs 17:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Sebring12Hrs: Done --Igor123121 17:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  - Info Please don't cancel my vote, there is chroma noise everywhere. --Sebring12Hrs 18:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Visible noise. --LexKurochkin 08:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It seems that the focus here is on the lamp post, which is obviously not the main subject of the image. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined --MB-one 08:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Nashville_warbler_immature_with_a_caterpillar_(53683).jpg

Nomination Immature Nashville warbler with a caterpillar --Rhododendrites 16:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Promotion
Support Good quality. Beautifully caught! --AFBorchert 16:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Very good, but something happened with the background, it has grid-like diagonal structures somewhere. --Gower 17:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Gower: I cannot follow you here. I do not see that. --AFBorchert 23:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  - Mainly at the upper left-hand corner, I think. --Harlock81 17:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I see no problem with the background. DOF is questionable, but the head is sharp. --LexKurochkin 07:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting caught; the bird is sharp. Good also for me. --Harlock81 17:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Good quality -- Giles Laurent 20:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted --MB-one 08:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-07-06_UEFA_Women_EM_BS_030.jpg

Nomination Ball course with games and interactive stations in Basel. By --Ahmet Düz 08:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline
Support Good quality. --Tagooty 08:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose There are some CAs and too much noise --Jakubhal 19:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose noisy and dark. Odd composition (what is top third of photo?) --E bailey 12:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined --Sebring12Hrs 13:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Drogheda_Highlanes_Gallery_“View_of_Drogheda_from_Ball's_Grove”_by_Gabrielle_Ricciardelli_2024_08_23.jpg

Nomination Landscape painting of Drogheda, Co. Louth, Ireland, by Gabrielle Ricciardelli c. 1753/1755. Panorama based on 21 frames. --AFBorchert 08:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Promotion
Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 17:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The right edge is blurred. I would like to hear other opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 13:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Everything is sharp enough to me. I do not see problems with sharpness. --LexKurochkin 07:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I agree with Sebring12Hrs that the right-hand border of the frame is not sharp, but the painting does not show the same problem. Over the bar for me. --Harlock81 17:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Harlock --- Giles Laurent 20:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted --MB-one 08:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Himalayan_Tahr_at_Sagarmatha_National_Park,_Nepal_01.jpg

Nomination Male Himalayan Tahr (hemitragus jemlahicus) at the Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal. by User:Gurung pratap --UnpetitproleX 12:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline
Oppose Looks overprocessed to me, per my feedback on FPC --Poco a poco 14:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

May not be a FP, but I don't think it lacks in quality (compared to other images here). --UnpetitproleX 20:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Parts of the face is blurred, and the established standard at QIC is that the face of the animal should be in focus, sorry.--Peulle 12:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's badly overprocessed, sorry, --Poco a poco 20:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined --MB-one 08:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

File:1011_Pont_du_Gard_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg

Nomination Aerial view of Pont du Gard, France (1) --Giles Laurent 00:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Promotion
Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Implicite support. --Harlock81 09:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, a PC is necessary. --Lmbuga 00:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Completely overprocessed. Look at the background. --Sebring12Hrs 02:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Good now. --Sebring12Hrs 19:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Harlock81 09:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Info The Mavic Mini 4 Pro produces 48MP photos from a very tiny 1/1.3-inch sensor. You can not expect the pictures from this sensor to have the same sharpness and detail as a Full frame sensor. A picture should not be judged harder only because it has more MP in my opinion. Anyway I have uploaded a new version that demonstrates my point, you will see that with 50% size it doesn't look "overprocessed" anymore. That is the only way to have pictures with this sharpness with the Mavic Mini 4 Pro. What do you think of the new version Sebring12Hrs and Harlock81? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Reducing the resolution is not the solution, it's like sweeping the dust under the rug to hide. And if the problem comes from the camera, well that's it. Jacek Halicki's photos (he has a drone of the same brand but not the same model as his), make superb photos, why and how, I don't know, but the result has nothing to do with it. There we see throughout the photo that there is a problem, the textures are not at all natural, the trees, the stones, the water, the buildings, this is even more visible in the background. It looks like a kind of digital painting that has nothing to do with a photo, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebring12Hrs (talk • contribs)

Jacek Halicki's photos are taken with the DJI Air which has a much lower resolution than the Mavic Mini 4 Pro because it only has 12MP instead of 48MP. And a 12MP photo will always look sharper than a 48MP photo. This exactly demonstrates what I have said above. Also if you look for example at this image from Jacek you will see no higher sharpness than the the present image. So the present candidate is way above the QI bar in my opinion. -- Giles Laurent 15:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explantion and the examples. However, I put it in a different way. If I take a picture with the camera of my phone, is it judged considering the camera capacity or evaluating the overall result? Of course, there is not a unique answer. In the best case, I think both. In this case, I understand that we are discussing about a limit of the instrumentation. Yet, it is difficult to say that the result is really good at the highest resolution. I would like to hear other opinions, and I might change also mine later. --Harlock81 16:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Harlock81 the reason I mentioned the material is because the DJI Mavic 4 Pro produces 48MP and the DJI Air produces 12MP photos. 12MP photos will always look much sharper than 48MP photos and therefore in my opinion a 48MP photo should not be judged harder than the 12MP version of it. Also, could you please check the updated version of the file? (Press CTRL+F5 on PC or Command+Shift+R on Mac with file open to refresh cache and view the new version) Thank you in advance. -- Giles Laurent 17:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Giles Laurent: I did, and I find the new version better than the other. However, after reading your point of you, I'm asking myself if the downscaling is really necessary. As said, I would like to hear other opinions. --Harlock81 (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Harlock81 if you think the image is now better do you still oppose (have you forgotten to update your previous votes to strike them?) ? If you don't oppose anymore, I would appreciate if you could update your votes, thank you in advance! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, some 50 Mpx cameras take better pictures than DJI Mavic. --Sebring12Hrs 17:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Sebring12Hrs, I already explained that Full frame cameras can't be compared to tiny 1/1.3-inch sensor. Please try to link any 50mp drone picture made with a 1/1.3-inch sensor with higher detail and you will see it doesn't exist. -- Giles Laurent 18:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment If your equipment cannot take quality photos, that is not a reason to give it a pass, meaning that you should be less strict with the photos coming from your drone compared to 45 Mpx devices which take good ones. Sorry, but your arguments don't suit me at all. And again sorry, at worst others will give their opinion. --Sebring12Hrs 20:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that it is not a question of equipment that I have or don't have but a question of physics in the realm of what is possible today with today's technology. The bigger the sensor in a camera, the more information it is able to record. If you have one 1/1.3-inch sensor that does 12 MP and a second 1/1.3-inch sensor that does 48 MP, the 12 MP photo taken in the 1/1.3-inch sensor will always look sharper than the 48 MP one. A 1/1.3-inch sensor is much smaller than a Full frame sensor and will always record less information than a full frame sensor.

You have talked about Jacek Halicki's drone photos. He uses a drone that does 12 MP photos, this means the 12 MP photo will look sharper than a 48 MP photo out of another drone with same sensor size than his drone.

If you compare this present candidate in the new updated 12 MP version (Press CTRL+F5 on PC or Command+Shift+R on Mac with file open to refresh cache and view the new version) you will find it sharper and more detailed than the 12 MP shots from Jacek that you take for reference for QI bar of drone shot.

In summary, the old version of the present candidate was already of QI level to me and with the new version of the present candidate it is even way more above QI level in my opinion -- Giles Laurent 20:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Click here for a side by side comparison -- Giles Laurent 21:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Per others. After rereading everything, I think the photo is useful for Wikimedia Commons, but that the instrument used is not suitable for QI. I insist that perspective correction is needed.--Lmbuga 21:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lmbuga so according to you all shots from a Mavic Mini 4 Pro can't be QI just because the drone records the image in 48MP instead of 12MP? There is a setting in the drone to record the image directly in 12 MP instead of 48 MP, I don't see why this couldn't be used or why it wouldn't be possible to reduce the picture size to match the 12 MP of drones that only have the 12 MP option. Regarding the perspective correction I don't think that's needed for a drone shot, this is normal perspective -- Giles Laurent 22:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Info @Harlock81, Lmbuga and Sebring12Hrs, I was mistaken and Jacek's drone is the DJI Air 3S (FC9113 camera is the DJI Air 3S wide-angle camera). The DJI Air 3S wide angle camera native resolution is 8192 x 6144 (50 MP) but Jacek's uploads are approximately 4000 pixels wide or less, which means they were all reduced in size by 50%. This once again completely demonstrates what I was saying. The only way to have a sharp shot with any 50MP drone is by downsizing it. So can you please explain why you think Jacek's reduced size shots are acceptable but not the present candidates? Should honesty be discouraged and candidates that admit reducing image size be disadvantaged over those who don’t say anything so that no one sees it? Please look this side by side comparison. To me the present candidate is clearly of QI and I don't see why one user would be allowed to reduce the size of his drone shots to 12 MP and not other ones. To be clear, I'm not saying Jacek's drone photos shouldn't be QI, they rightfully are. I'm saying that the present candidate should also be QI and should also be allowed to be in 50% since other users do that too -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ The picture is now reduced to 12 MP, but still the overall quality isn't very good - lots of NR artifacts, lack of detail, overprocessed textures. It's under the QI bar for me - "but the camera can't do better" is not a valid argument IMO. Related, the Mavic Mini 4 Pro has a gimbal, so was it really necessary to take the picture at 1/3200s and ISO 150? Lower ISO would have produced a better result despite the small sensor. --Plozessor 03:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Plozessor, I don't see where you see "lack of detail" because I see all individual leafs of the closest trees from the left and right side. ISO 100 or ISO 150 have barely no difference at all and yes 1/3200s was necessary because a slower shutter speed would have resulted in blown highlights. -- Giles Laurent 08:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The "Lack of detail" can be debated - it's probably ok for that type of camera, though on other pictures of that same bridge, the structure and the individual bricks are much more visible. Still it's somehow overprocessed/overcontrasted (visible at the leaves and also at the water edges) and there's the tilt of course. But ... why do you think that with ISO 100 and 1/2000s the highlights would blow and with ISO 150 and 1/3200s they would not? --Plozessor 15:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Plozessor I'm sorry but you can not compare a photo taken from 10m distance to a photo taken at 150 m distance. Also you can not compare visibility of tiles for a picture taken with the sun high which casts shadows between tiles to a picture taken at golden hour in winter with a much lower sun illuminating the holes between the tiles. The monument in this photo has more than enough detail considering the distance of the subject and lighting situation and is well above QI bar. I don't see oversharpening on the leafs and if that is the only issue that can easily be softened. Mathematically if exposure is perfect at ISO 150 and shutter speed 1/3200, you could use a shutter speed as slow as 1/2133.33 and anything lower would be inevitably cause overexposure so 1/2000s in this situation in combination with ISO 100 would overexpose because cameras don't have a 1/2133.33 setting. So it would be a setting of 1/2500s to go for a ISO 100. However as I have already explained, there is barely no difference at all between ISO 150 1/3200s and ISO 100 1/2500s so that would make no visual difference. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Giles Laurent Saw your new version and I'm still not too happy with the look of the trees (it just looks overcontrasted/artificial to me), but overall it is much better now, so that I have at least removed my opposing vote. Btw, does this camera store raw files and would you have that for this image? --Plozessor 03:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment I think uploading a 12MP is acceptable here: neither the Mavic Mini Pro 4 nor the Mavic Air 3S have true 48MP sensors, at least in the conventional sense. They use Sony's Quad Bayer tech, which groups adjacent pixels in 2x2 groups. By default, these drones take 12MP images by using each 2x2 group as a pixel but also have an option to take 48MP shots by using each individual pixel. I gave up using the 48MP option because I didn't think the little extra detail made up for the increased interpolation errors and reduced dynamic range, but your mileage may vary. In any case, I agree with others that your 12MP looks over-processed (sharpening halos and noise reduction smudges), it should be possible to get a cleaner image out of this sensor. --Julesvernex2 21:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Julesvernex2 thank you for your comment. It's good to see someone with technical knowledge. Thank you for acknowledging that drones with 48 MP quad bayer sensors shouldn't have their images necessarily in 48 MP and that 12 MP is acceptable in such cases. I've just uploaded right now a new reworked version with no sharpening, only selective denoise on some areas (Press CTRL+F5 on PC or Command+Shift+R on Mac with file open to refresh cache and view the new version). Could you please tell me what you think of it? Thank you in advance! -- Giles Laurent 22:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Giles, I think that looks better and on par with what can be expected from a Type 1/1.3 sensor. Any strong reason not to correct the perspective? It often looks weird on drone shots, but it may work well for some of the images on this series? --Julesvernex2 15:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Here, we’re not judging only the end result regardless of how it was made—technique matters. Approving this image as-is would encourage downscaled submissions. Technically, it also needs vertical correction, the wide-angle lens has introduced keystone distortion. In architectural photography, keeping verticals straight is essential. --Wilfredor 14:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC) Support IMHO the picture is better now with the perspective fix --Wilfredor 02:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with that last bit: some images benefit from straight verticals, others don't. --Julesvernex2 18:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Done, new reworked version just uploaded with perspective correction done (Press CTRL+F5 on PC or Command+Shift+R on Mac with file open to refresh cache and view the new version). What do you think now Harlock81, Lmbuga, Sebring12Hrs, Julesvernex2 and Wilfredor? -- Giles Laurent 20:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks for keeping at it! --Julesvernex2 21:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Now the photo is good. Thank you for the perspective correction. --Lmbuga 09:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted --Sebring12Hrs 02:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:1012_Pont_du_Gard_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg

Nomination Aerial view of Pont du Gard, France (2) --Giles Laurent 00:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Promotion
Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Implicite support. --Harlock81 09:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, a PC is necessary. --Lmbuga 00:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Completely overprocessed. Look at the background. --Sebring12Hrs 02:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Absolutely ok now. Thanks all for the explanations and it was finally constructive. --Sebring12Hrs 19:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Harlock81 09:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Info The Mavic Mini 4 Pro produces 48MP photos from a very tiny 1/1.3-inch sensor. You can not expect the pictures from this sensor to have the same sharpness and detail as a Full frame sensor. A picture should not be judged harder only because it has more MP in my opinion. Anyway I have uploaded a new version that demonstrates my point, you will see that with 50% size it doesn't look "overprocessed" anymore. That is the only way to have pictures with this sharpness with the Mavic Mini 4 Pro. What do you think of the new version Sebring12Hrs and Harlock81? -- Giles Laurent 15:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Reducing the resolution is not the solution, it's like sweeping the dust under the rug to hide. And if the problem comes from the camera, well that's it. Jacek Halicki's photos (he has a drone of the same brand but not the same model as his), make superb photos, why and how, I don't know, but the result has nothing to do with it. There we see throughout the photo that there is a problem, the textures are not at all natural, the trees, the stones, the water, the buildings, this is even more visible in the background. It looks like a kind of digital painting that has nothing to do with a photo, sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebring12Hrs (talk • contribs)

Jacek Halicki's photos are taken with the DJI Air which has a much lower resolution than the Mavic Mini 4 Pro because it only has 12MP instead of 48MP. And a 12MP photo will always look sharper than a 48MP photo. This exactly demonstrates what I have said above. Also if you look for example at this image from Jacek you will see no higher sharpness than the the present image. So the present candidate is way above the QI bar in my opinion. -- Giles Laurent 15:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Click here for a side by side comparison -- Giles Laurent 21:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Per others. After rereading everything, I think the photo is useful for Wikimedia Commons, but that the instrument used is not suitable for QI. I insist that perspective correction is needed.--Lmbuga 21:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lmbuga so according to you all shots from a Mavic Mini 4 Pro can't be QI just because the drone records the image in 48MP instead of 12MP? There is a setting in the drone to record the image directly in 12 MP instead of 48 MP, I don't see why this couldn't be used or why it wouldn't be possible to reduce the picture size to match the 12 MP of drones that only have the 12 MP option. Regarding the perspective correction I don't think that's needed for a drone shot, this is normal perspective. Anyway, the perspective was edited in this shot to see how it looks and it seems you don't even see the difference with and without perspective correction so why would you require it? If the perspective still isn't right in your eyes please tell me exactly what is the problem according to you. -- Giles Laurent 22:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Info @Harlock81, Lmbuga and Sebring12Hrs, I was mistaken and Jacek's drone is the DJI Air 3S (FC9113 camera is the DJI Air 3S wide-angle camera). The DJI Air 3S wide angle camera native resolution is 8192 x 6144 (50 MP) but Jacek's uploads are approximately 4000 pixels wide or less, which means they were all reduced in size by 50%. This once again completely demonstrates what I was saying. The only way to have a sharp shot with any 50MP drone is by downsizing it. So can you please explain why you think Jacek's reduced size shots are acceptable but not the present candidates? Should honesty be discouraged and candidates that admit reducing image size be disadvantaged over those who don’t say anything so that no one sees it? Please look this side by side comparison. To me the present candidate is clearly of QI and I don't see why one user would be allowed to reduce the size of his drone shots to 12 MP and not other ones. To be clear, I'm not saying Jacek's drone photos shouldn't be QI, they rightfully are. I'm saying that the present candidate should also be QI and should also be allowed to be in 50% since other users do that too -- Giles Laurent 23:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Done, new reworked version just uploaded with perspective correction done (Press CTRL+F5 on PC or Command+Shift+R on Mac with file open to refresh cache and view the new version). What do you think now Harlock81, Lmbuga, Sebring12Hrs, Julesvernex2 and Wilfredor? -- Giles Laurent 20:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Julesvernex2 21:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Support Good picture IMO--Lmbuga 09:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted --Sebring12Hrs 02:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:1013_Pont_du_Gard_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg

Nomination Aerial view of Pont du Gard, France (3) --Giles Laurent 00:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Promotion
Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Implicite support. --Harlock81 09:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, a PC is necessary. --Lmbuga 00:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Completely overprocessed. Look at the background. --Sebring12Hrs 02:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Now good, thanks ! --Sebring12Hrs 19:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Harlock81 09:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Info The Mavic Mini 4 Pro produces 48MP photos from a very tiny 1/1.3-inch sensor. You can not expect the pictures from this sensor to have the same sharpness and detail as a Full frame sensor. A picture should not be judged harder only because it has more MP in my opinion. Anyway I have uploaded a new version that demonstrates my point, you will see that with 50% size it doesn't look "overprocessed" anymore. That is the only way to have pictures with this sharpness with the Mavic Mini 4 Pro. What do you think of the new version Sebring12Hrs and Harlock81? -- Giles Laurent 15:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Reducing the resolution is not the solution, it's like sweeping the dust under the rug to hide. And if the problem comes from the camera, well that's it. Jacek Halicki's photos (he has a drone of the same brand but not the same model as his), make superb photos, why and how, I don't know, but the result has nothing to do with it. There we see throughout the photo that there is a problem, the textures are not at all natural, the trees, the stones, the water, the buildings, this is even more visible in the background. It looks like a kind of digital painting that has nothing to do with a photo, sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebring12Hrs (talk • contribs)

Jacek Halicki's photos are taken with the DJI Air which has a much lower resolution than the Mavic Mini 4 Pro because it only has 12MP instead of 48MP. And a 12MP photo will always look sharper than a 48MP photo. This exactly demonstrates what I have said above. Also if you look for example at this image from Jacek you will see no higher sharpness than the the present image. So the present candidate is way above the QI bar in my opinion. -- Giles Laurent 15:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Click here for a side by side comparison -- Giles Laurent 21:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

* Oppose Per others. After rereading everything, I think the photo is useful for Wikimedia Commons, but that the instrument used is not suitable for QI. I insist that perspective correction is needed.--Lmbuga 21:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lmbuga so according to you all shots from a Mavic Mini 4 Pro can't be QI just because the drone records the image in 48MP instead of 12MP? There is a setting in the drone to record the image directly in 12 MP instead of 48 MP, I don't see why this couldn't be used or why it wouldn't be possible to reduce the picture size to match the 12 MP of drones that only have the 12 MP option. Regarding the perspective correction I don't think that's needed for a drone shot, this is normal perspective -- Giles Laurent 22:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Info @Harlock81, Lmbuga and Sebring12Hrs, I was mistaken and Jacek's drone is the DJI Air 3S (FC9113 camera is the DJI Air 3S wide-angle camera). The DJI Air 3S wide angle camera native resolution is 8192 x 6144 (50 MP) but Jacek's uploads are approximately 4000 pixels wide or less, which means they were all reduced in size by 50%. This once again completely demonstrates what I was saying. The only way to have a sharp shot with any 50MP drone is by downsizing it. So can you please explain why you think Jacek's reduced size shots are acceptable but not the present candidates? Should honesty be discouraged and candidates that admit reducing image size be disadvantaged over those who don’t say anything so that no one sees it? Please look this side by side comparison. To me the present candidate is clearly of QI and I don't see why one user would be allowed to reduce the size of his drone shots to 12 MP and not other ones. To be clear, I'm not saying Jacek's drone photos shouldn't be QI, they rightfully are. I'm saying that the present candidate should also be QI and should also be allowed to be in 50% since other users do that too -- Giles Laurent 23:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Done, new reworked version just uploaded with perspective correction done (Press CTRL+F5 on PC or Command+Shift+R on Mac with file open to refresh cache and view the new version). What do you think now Harlock81, Lmbuga, Sebring12Hrs, Julesvernex2 and Wilfredor? -- Giles Laurent 20:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment This one I think was better without the perspective correction --Julesvernex2 21:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Good picture IMO--Lmbuga 09:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Julesvernex2: : I consider that the perspective has been corrected. Please check it again.--Lmbuga 09:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  - It has. My point was that, due to the distance and angle, this image in particular looked better without perspective correction. Just a personal opinion though, I won't oppose. --Julesvernex2 10:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted --Sebring12Hrs 02:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:1015_Pont_du_Gard_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg

Nomination Aerial view of Pont du Gard, France (4) --Giles Laurent 00:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Promotion
Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Implicite support. --Harlock81 09:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, a PC is necessary. --Lmbuga 00:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Completely overprocessed. Look at the background. --Sebring12Hrs 02:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Ok now. --Sebring12Hrs 19:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Harlock81 09:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Info The Mavic Mini 4 Pro produces 48MP photos from a very tiny 1/1.3-inch sensor. You can not expect the pictures from this sensor to have the same sharpness and detail as a Full frame sensor. A picture should not be judged harder only because it has more MP in my opinion. Anyway I have uploaded a new version that demonstrates my point, you will see that with 50% size it doesn't look "overprocessed" anymore. That is the only way to have pictures with this sharpness with the Mavic Mini 4 Pro. What do you think of the new version Sebring12Hrs and Harlock81? -- Giles Laurent 15:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Reducing the resolution is not the solution, it's like sweeping the dust under the rug to hide. And if the problem comes from the camera, well that's it. Jacek Halicki's photos (he has a drone of the same brand but not the same model as his), make superb photos, why and how, I don't know, but the result has nothing to do with it. There we see throughout the photo that there is a problem, the textures are not at all natural, the trees, the stones, the water, the buildings, this is even more visible in the background. It looks like a kind of digital painting that has nothing to do with a photo, sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebring12Hrs (talk • contribs)

Jacek Halicki's photos are taken with the DJI Air which has a much lower resolution than the Mavic Mini 4 Pro because it only has 12MP instead of 48MP. And a 12MP photo will always look sharper than a 48MP photo. This exactly demonstrates what I have said above. Also if you look for example at this image from Jacek you will see no higher sharpness than the the present image. So the present candidate is way above the QI bar in my opinion. -- Giles Laurent 15:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Click here for a side by side comparison -- Giles Laurent 21:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Per others. After rereading everything, I think the photo is useful for Wikimedia Commons, but that the instrument used is not suitable for QI. I insist that perspective correction is needed.--Lmbuga 21:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lmbuga so according to you all shots from a Mavic Mini 4 Pro can't be QI just because the drone records the image in 48MP instead of 12MP? There is a setting in the drone to record the image directly in 12 MP instead of 48 MP, I don't see why this couldn't be used or why it wouldn't be possible to reduce the picture size to match the 12 MP of drones that only have the 12 MP option. Regarding the perspective correction I don't think that's needed for a drone shot, this is normal perspective -- Giles Laurent 22:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Info @Harlock81, Lmbuga and Sebring12Hrs, I was mistaken and Jacek's drone is the DJI Air 3S (FC9113 camera is the DJI Air 3S wide-angle camera). The DJI Air 3S wide angle camera native resolution is 8192 x 6144 (50 MP) but Jacek's uploads are approximately 4000 pixels wide or less, which means they were all reduced in size by 50%. This once again completely demonstrates what I was saying. The only way to have a sharp shot with any 50MP drone is by downsizing it. So can you please explain why you think Jacek's reduced size shots are acceptable but not the present candidates? Should honesty be discouraged and candidates that admit reducing image size be disadvantaged over those who don’t say anything so that no one sees it? Please look this side by side comparison. To me the present candidate is clearly of QI and I don't see why one user would be allowed to reduce the size of his drone shots to 12 MP and not other ones. To be clear, I'm not saying Jacek's drone photos shouldn't be QI, they rightfully are. I'm saying that the present candidate should also be QI and should also be allowed to be in 50% since other users do that too -- Giles Laurent 23:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Done, new reworked version just uploaded with perspective correction done (Press CTRL+F5 on PC or Command+Shift+R on Mac with file open to refresh cache and view the new version). What do you think now Harlock81, Lmbuga, Sebring12Hrs, Julesvernex2 and Wilfredor? -- Giles Laurent 20:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Julesvernex2 21:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Good picture IMO --Lmbuga 09:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted --Sebring12Hrs 02:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_Нижний_парк,_Оранжерейный_сад,_рудбекия_01.jpg

Nomination Rudbeckia laciniata in Orangery Garden of Lower Park, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 22:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Promotion
Oppose Too messy composition for me, two species together almost mixed. Flowers aren't very detailed. --Gower 06:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
"two species together" as an argument; I cannot read it, stop it. --Lvova 08:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Guidelines: „Foreground and background objects should not be distracting” --Gower 17:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support The composition is good to me here. And the sharpness acceptable. --Sebring12Hrs 21:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Юрий Д.К. 06:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Sharpness rather below the bar, overexposed areas. And Gower's argument is valid, the description should mention both species --Poco a poco 21:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Gower's argument was about something else, but I've improved the description as far as you're not satisfied with categories only. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Anna.Massini 12:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Anna.Massini
Support Very nice composition, good lighting, acceptabel sharpness, and now also good image description ;-) --Smial 11:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Poco a poco. Sorry. --LexKurochkin 10:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Parts of the flowers are overexposed. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Good enough quality -- Giles Laurent 20:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted --MB-one 08:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)