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 December 2025.
  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 December 2025.
  • 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 December 24 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 08:05, 24 December 2025 (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).


December 24, 2025

[edit]

December 23, 2025

[edit]

December 22, 2025

[edit]

December 21, 2025

[edit]

December 20, 2025

[edit]

December 19, 2025

[edit]

December 18, 2025

[edit]

December 17, 2025

[edit]

December 16, 2025

[edit]

December 15, 2025

[edit]

December 14, 2025

[edit]

December 13, 2025

[edit]

December 12, 2025

[edit]

December 11, 2025

[edit]

December 10, 2025

[edit]

December 9, 2025

[edit]

December 8, 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:Uzbek_girl_in_traditional_clothing.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination On this photograph you can see an Uzbek girl wearing traditional festive costume. She is covered with a mantle with handmade embroidery. Such mantles are commonly worn by brides on their wedding day. Under the mantle she wears a robe - Uzbek: chopon - made out of light half-silk half-cotton fabric - Uzbek: adras. On her head she wears a festive skullcap - Uzbek: do'ppi.This media was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Folklore 2025 international photographic contest. By User:Elamanovaelvina --Suyash.dwivedi 16:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Great quality. --DimiTalen 16:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose It's shame there is posterization on top (background). --Sebring12Hrs 18:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Caracol_marino_(Cypraea_tigris),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-23,_DD_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tiger cowrie (Cypraea tigris), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 04:33, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Sorry. Out of focus. --Pdanese 11:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
    It does look blurry, but it isn't. It is a visual effect of the pattern of the shell. Look at the sand on the shell, it is sharp. The shell has --Poco a poco 19:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Krakow_Rajska_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kraków, Municipal Library "Rajska" --Gower 21:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Very blurry on the right side and in bottom part of the image, and the central building is obscured by wires and road signs. --Екатерина Борисова 01:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
    obscuring everything by wires and road signs it's our Polish specialty ;) --Gower 20:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
    I hope that blurry images are not Polish speciality :) You've set the photo back to Nomination instead of send it to CR section, so I do it for you. --Екатерина Борисова 02:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Krakow_pomnik_Mickiewicza_z_tylu_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kraków, Adam Mickiewicz monument, back side --Gower 21:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Sorry, poor composition IMO: the statue should not have been allowed to obscure the church. Furthermore, it is not a suitable background, and a more appropriate one would have been easy to find. --Lmbuga 01:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
    @Lmbuga: I specially took a photo from the back to show other details, we have dozens of photos from the front of this monument; It's not my fault that a church has been there since the Middle Ages --Gower 20:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts_-_La_Nativité_et_l'Adoration_des_Bergers.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dijon (Côte-d'Or, France) - Museum of Fine Arts - Nativity and Adoration of the Shepherds, by the master of Flémaille (probably someone from Robert Campin's workshop) --Benjism89 06:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 10:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterization at the bottom right. We can see a "color quantization". --Sebring12Hrs 07:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

File:20240815_View_cupola_Berlin_Cathedral_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Views from the cupola of the Berlin Cathedral --FlocciNivis 17:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The image has an unnatural brownish tint. Fixable? --Augustgeyler 20:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I am so sorry, I thought I had only commented on this nomination. Excuse me please if I was messing it up be accidentally bringing it here. --Augustgeyler 07:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Église_Saint-Georges_de_Fressain.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Église Saint-Georges de Fressain --JackyM59 15:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, lack of detail --Lmbuga 16:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit borderline indeed, but ok to me. Let's discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 22:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Good but just too low on detail. Per Lmbuga. --August (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Supermoon,_September_28,_2015_(UTC),_Osaka,_Japan.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Supermoon, September 28, 2015 (UTC), Osaka, Japan. --Laitche 10:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 10:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Junior Jumper 11:27, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The Moon is a bit too blurred IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 11:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Yes, that’s true. Focus stacking would be the optimal solution, but I wasn’t considering it at the time this photo was taken. --Laitche 12:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info New version uploaded. --Laitche 18:23, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The last version has more contrast than the previous one, and we can see textures added on the surface, but I don't think it's QI, because those textures seems to be compression artifacts. --Sebring12Hrs 19:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: This is a normal contrast adjustment. While it may appear textured, it does not seem to be caused by compression artifacts. --Laitche 20:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Denoised. --Laitche 18:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Abbaye_de_Fontenay_-_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Marmagne (Côte-d'Or, France) - Former cistercian abbey of Fontenay - Nave of the abbey church --Benjism89 07:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 08:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Darkness in middle is creating distrubance --Junior Jumper 11:27, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Junior Jumper: I want to learn and I don't understand your comment. What do you mean by "darkness in the middle"? --Lmbuga 05:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and not so dark for a photo taken in an interior church. --Sebring12Hrs 07:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 19:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 07:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Abbaye_de_Fontenay_-_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Marmagne (Côte-d'Or, France) - Former cistercian abbey of Fontenay - Madonna and Child (13th c.) in the abbey church --Benjism89 07:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The picture doesn't look blown out to me, but the light eats away at the detail in the faces. It doesn't look like QI to me. --Lmbuga 08:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It looks ok to me, not so bad, but may be borderline, I'id like to hear others opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 11:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Some minor blown out details in the upper part. But only at small areas at the upper part. --August (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info New version with highlights corrected --Benjism89 09:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 07:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_026_St_Mary_Basilica.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St Mary’s Basilica Towers & Church Dome, Krakow --Scotch Mist 07:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good, but it would be advisable to correct the perspective to be QI. The dark tones are too dark, in my opinion. --Lmbuga 08:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO image not conducive to PC so QI should be determined on other factors - other opinions? --Scotch Mist 09:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • You come storming in --Lmbuga 10:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, no perspective correction is needed here, as this is a clear and intentional upward-looking viewpoint. However, the dark tones are too dark at the moment — something that could easily be corrected. --Augustgeyler 18:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. --Sebring12Hrs 11:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_029_St_Mary_Basilica_-_Tops_of_Towers.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St Mary’s Basilica Tops of Towers --Scotch Mist 07:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Iit would be advisable to correct the perspective to be QI. The dark tones are too dark, in my opinion. --Lmbuga 08:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO image not conducive to PC so QI should be determined on other factors - other opinions? --Scotch Mist 09:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • WOW!! --Lmbuga 10:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga. --Sebring12Hrs 11:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment No perspective correction is needed here, as this is a clear and intentional upward-looking viewpoint. However, the dark tones are too dark at the moment — something that could easily be corrected. --Augustgeyler 18:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Nikolauskapelle_between_the_vineyards,_Klingenmünster,_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nikolauskapelle, Klingenmünster. --DimiTalen 06:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Foreground needs work or removal! --Scotch Mist 07:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 12:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. --Scotch Mist 15:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I don't particularly love it, but it's a good picture.--Lmbuga 06:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The church itself is a good quality image (which is why I did not initially 'oppose') but around 10% of the current image is a 'green blob' which is essentially a 'camera artifact' - prudent cropping of the image could significantly reduce that percentage (a percentage which is much higher than often is used to justify opposing support of other images on the basis of detail being lost due to "blown-out" highlights or shadows "too dark").--Scotch Mist 10:00, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Scotch Mist. I think a minimal crop would make it QI. --Augustgeyler 18:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the feedback. I uploaded a new version, more tightly cropped. Hope this qualifies. --DimiTalen 18:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support For me the composition works now. The branch on the right part is still a bit "in the way", but QI. --Augustgeyler 18:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Юрий Д.К. 19:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Crop works. --Scotch Mist 08:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 18:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2024_025_St_Mary_Basilica_-_South_Tower.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination North Tower of St Mary’s Basilica, Krakow --Scotch Mist 10:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 09:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The tower lost it's natural shape due to strong perspective correction (see the real shape here). This was a bottom-up view, but now it's pretending to be a frontal view. But for what reason? --Екатерина Борисова 02:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова --Lmbuga 06:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina. --Augustgeyler 07:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Екатерина Борисова: Good question! If you look at two other images (above '026' and '029') you will note that these were opposed on the basis that PC was required when I personally thought these images were not conducive to PC for the very reason you have highlighted here. The pivotal issue is that there appears to be no logical consistency in Reviews or Discussions with people declining support in one instance but not supporting in the other. Worse still is when support is declined in both scenarios by the same users suggesting a "no-win" situation when perhaps the photographer is best placed to assess whether PC should be applied or not in the complexity of perspective rigour versus what is natural to the eye. --Scotch Mist 08:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please read again discussions above, they say that the issue is not in a clear and intentional upward-looking viewpoint, and I personally agree with it. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Library_of_Palácio_das_Galveias_seen_from_a_window_with_a_reflected_view_of_the_CGD_headquarters_and_a_sitting_man,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Library of Palácio das Galveias seen from a window with a reflected view of the CGD headquarters and a sitting man, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 09:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose This is an interesting picture and I like the composition, but I think it's no QI due to the distortions looking through the window --FlocciNivis 18:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can see plenty of reflections but no distortions, could you leave a note? --Julesvernex2 21:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Well captured reflections. --Augustgeyler 08:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 08:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Немецкая_лютеранская_церковь_св._Анны10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Top of Lutheran Church of St. Anne (bottom-up view), Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 01:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, picture is tilted. --Jacek Halicki 09:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I can try to fix it if you tell me specifically which tilt you don't like: backward (although this is natural for the view from below) or sideways (which, to my taste, is insignificant). -- Екатерина Борисова 03:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jacek Halicki. --Sebring12Hrs 11:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Sorry, I'm not agree. --Lmbuga 03:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
I don't see it tilted.--Lmbuga 06:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 17:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts_-_La_Dame_à_sa_toilette.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination La Dame à sa toilette --Benjism89 11:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Strong color noise. Feel free to go to CR. --Sebring12Hrs 12:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Low noise on the painting, noise is mainly on the frame and background. I'd like other opinions --Benjism89 10:10, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry @Benjism89, but most or all of your high-ISO pictures are poorly denoised, with several completely out-of-color pixels. You might want to verify your Darktable settings, or switch to another raw converter. There's a lot of potential in these pictures but they need better NR. --Plozessor 05:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 17:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Jan Nowak-Jeziorański square, 2025, Krakow, Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plac Jana Nowaka-Jeziorańskiego, 2025, Kraków, Polska --Igor123121 07:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 12:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is the level of vignetting acceptable here? Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Vignetting is notable. Additionally the level of detail is quite low. On the other hand the image has good light and sharpness. --August (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Vignetting--Lmbuga 03:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: @Lmbuga: ✓ Done --Igor123121 08:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Юрий Д.К. 19:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 17:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Jan_Nowak-Jeziorański_Square,_2025,_Kraków._Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plac Jana Nowaka-Jeziorańskiego, 2025, Kraków, Polska --Igor123121 07:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 12:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is the level of vignetting acceptable here? Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Vignetting--Lmbuga 03:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 17:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Aerial view of Kraków Główny station and Bosacka Street buildings, Poland, December 2025.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 16:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_ul._Zielona_10_(3).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 16:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Katowice_St_Mary_church_at_night_N_2021.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Immaculate Conception church in Katowice at night --Gower 13:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 15:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's leaning. PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 16:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: thanks, ✓ Done? I've uploaded corrected version --Gower 08:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 16:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 16:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Piekary_Slaskie_Szarlejka_tunnel_2021.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Szarlejka stream flowing in the tunnel, Piekary Śląskie --Gower 13:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 15:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp and noisy, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 02:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment CAs --Lmbuga 01:53, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 16:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Lycopus_europaeus_Bytom.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common gypsywort (Lycopus europaeus) on a wooden post, Bytom --Gower 16:35, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 19:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful image, but too blurry in full size. --Екатерина Борисова 02:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful composition compensates borderline sharpness, in total slightly over the bar for me. --Plozessor 03:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Very good compo, but not very sharp (would be a FP for me). Юрий Д.К. 19:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Split_BW_2024-10-02_13-03-15.jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment I disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 16:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO sharpness is absolutely ok, but framing is not. --Plozessor 03:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Château_de_Tilly_(Eure).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Château de Tilly (Eure) -- Rolf Kranz 18:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 19:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed at full size, we can see artifacts. --Sebring12Hrs 20:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: I have re-edited the photo. I still cannot see any ‘artifacts’, whatever you mean by that. Due to the very restrained image editing, it can hardly be described as ‘overprocessed’.--Rolf Kranz 13:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Better now, regarding the resolution it's ok. Thanks. --Sebring12Hrs 14:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 14:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Borderline. Not as sharp as I would expect from the camera and parameters, probably wrong focus or slight motion blur. --Plozessor 04:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Per Sebring12Hrs and Plozessor. Artefacts are visible at 100%, but we have a high resolution and good level of detail. --Augustgeyler 17:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 15:57, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Indian_boar_in_Kaziranga_National_Park_March_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Indian boar (Sus scrofa cristatus) in Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hobbyfotowiki 11:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Temporary  Oppose Good, but please improve the description and CATs with the action (walking) and male/female (if known) --Tagooty 13:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 15:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts_-_Statue_de_Sainte_Véronique.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dijon (Côte-d'Or, France) - Museum of Fine Arts - 14th-century statue of saint Veronica --Benjism89 07:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Color noise at the bootom, on the grey area. --Sebring12Hrs 12:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The support has a dark color, so noise is stronger than on the subject. But it's background ... and in my opinion, a small amount of noise, hardly visible at 4 MPx, should be accepted in the background, just as we accept that background can be blurred or even burnt. Anyway, I made a new version with stronger noise reduction on the support --Benjism89 14:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Noise and NR artifacts at the bottom and background, but overall acceptable. --Plozessor 04:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chromatic noise throughout the image. Artifacts too --Lmbuga 06:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Plozessor --Scotch Mist 15:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Musée_des_Beaux-Arts_-_Tombeaux_des_Ducs_de_Bourgogne_-_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dijon (Côte-d'Or, France) - Museum of Fine Arts - Tombs of the Dukes of Burgundy - Details of the statue of Philip the Bold, with two angels --Benjism89 07:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose There are too much noise/artifacts in the background. --Sebring12Hrs 12:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Background has no direct lighting, so noise is stronger than on the subject. But it's background ... and in my opinion, a small amount of noise, hardly visible at 4 MPx, should be accepted in the background, just as we accept that background can be blurred or even burnt. Anyway, I made a new version with stronger noise reduction on the support --Benjism89 14:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Clearly over the bar for me. --Plozessor 04:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
    May be ok for the second version, but the first ? --Sebring12Hrs 17:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 02:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lmbuga 03:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Lim-6,_Polish_Aviation_Museum,_39_Jana_Pawła_II_Avenue,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lim-6, Polish Aviation Museum, 39 Jana Pawła II Avenue, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 05:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose burned out highlights at the full wing. --Augustgeyler 23:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If the composition were good, there would be no aeroplanes cut off on the right-hand side. --Lmbuga 13:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --August (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Irish_Embassy,_Tokyo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ireland House, Tokyo --Davekern 07:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment A stain in the sky to be erased. --JackyM59 09:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Fixed, Thanks! --Davekern 09:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, but on closer inspection, you can still see some on the left and top right. There's also a problem with the F-11 and F-16 when they have a blue uniform. --JackyM59 13:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Went on a closer look, and I feel I've managed to catch all the bits of dirt. Not sure I understand the comment about the Blue Uniform and f11/f16 --Davekern 14:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Sometimes f16 causes dust to appear on the sensor. I'll let someone else give their opinion. --JackyM59 18:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 19:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question What do you mean by PC? the acronym isn't something I'm familiar with :) --Davekern 06:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment PC means "perspective correction". In architecture photography, buildings should have straight walls (in general). --Sebring12Hrs 12:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • It is about perspective distortion. --August (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective and dust spots per others. As discussed above, dust or dirt spots on the sensor or lens have a stronger effect with high f-numbers. The resulting dust spots on the images must be retouched during postprocessing. --Plozessor 04:57, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me, the photo is not QI because it is cropped at the top (the plants are part of the composition. --Lmbuga 13:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Sebring12Hrs 14:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Mistbiene_(Eristalis_tenax)_Sonnenbraut_(Helenium)-20250829-RM-155514.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mistbiene (Eristalis tenax) on a sunflower blossom --Ermell 06:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 07:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange Spot in the upper middle --Grunpfnul 15:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, at the upper edge above the wing there is an area with accidentally added noise (or that was excluded from noise reduction). --Plozessor 06:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I always have my difficulties with animal photos. From my point of view, the photo is fine, but I can also understand the opposing views. --XRay 09:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the hint. I don´t know what happened there.--Ermell 20:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Julian Lupyan 20:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Giles Laurent 09:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Lmbuga 13:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Julian Lupyan 20:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Moscow - 2025-9-15 - Details of the facade of the National Hotel.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2025-9 - Details of the facade of the National Hotel --Юрий Д.К. 23:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Nice image, but perspective distortion on the right should be fixed. --Augustgeyler 01:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Doing… I will try to fix --Юрий Д.К. 15:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Hi, new version here, looks straight for me. --Юрий Д.К. 12:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you. But it did not improve as much as it needs. The verticals on the right are still leaning in. --Augustgeyler 12:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • correction: *leaning out. --August (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. Yes it's a bit leaning, but not very disturbing. Walls are straight overall. Feet free to go to CR if you disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 09:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose And once again, Sebring12Hrs, you are interrupting an ongoing review process. Back to the topic: please don’t focus only on the verticals at the outer right edge of the building. Instead, look at the outer columns on the right — they are clearly leaning outwards. --Augustgeyler 00:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. The columns don't have to be perfectly straight, especially from this angle, taken from the side. --Юрий Д.К. 00:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • OK, but don't you see how distorted the lower right part looks – as if the building would be less wide at the bottom than in the upper floors. --August (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment This time I disagree. I'm interrupting the process because for me the current version of this image is QI. I'm not going to wait for the author to change it when I don't agree. Afterwards, I could have notified you, it would have been more fair. --Sebring12Hrs 01:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Unfortunately now the centre part is tilted ccw. --Augustgeyler 23:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    • I agree but it only solution to fix you statement about columns! :). I reverted to original which in my opinion not required perspective correction. Lets hear other opinions. Юрий Д.К. 23:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Sebring12Hrs, more than ever. --Lmbuga 13:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 06:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:O3_Business_Campus,_view_from_29_Listopada_Avenue,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination O3 Business Campus, view from 29 Listopada Avenue, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 07:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good composition, but  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 14:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The sharpness is good here compared with some other ptomoted photos. --Sebring12Hrs 11:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Oups yes, you are right, there is a dust spot. --Sebring12Hrs 12:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
     Support. --Sebring12Hrs 17:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Sebring12Hrs. --Wobbanight 14:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness could be better but IMO it's over the bar. --Plozessor 03:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a huge dust spot in the top left corner, oppose until it is fixed Jakubhal 07:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now Jakubhal 05:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Temporary  Oppose due dust spot (per Jakubhal). --Plozessor 08:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Plozessor 11:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I think we forget that, according to the guidelines, we can vote in favour of images of only more than two megapixels --Lmbuga 13:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --August (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_posture_Basking_of_Ypthima_huebneri_Kirby,_1871_-_Common_Four-ring_WLB_IMG_1747a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing posture Basking of Ypthima huebneri Kirby, 1871 - Common Four-ring --Sandipoutsider 12:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hobbyfotowiki 21:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enopugh. --Sebring12Hrs 22:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Over the bar for me. --Plozessor 05:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. The butterfly's shadow is very poor. It is a BLUE-WHITE mist, so the butterfly's context is not valid and the butterfly is too small. The quality is not good IMO. --Lmbuga 22:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Plozessor --Scotch Mist 15:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 01:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Zygmunta_Krasińskiego_Avenue,_view_to_N,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Zygmunta Krasińskiego Av, view to N, Kraków, Poland.jpg --Igor123121 06:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pangalau 07:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is lacking sharpness and detail. --Augustgeyler 14:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I think we forget that, according to the guidelines, we can vote in favour of images of only more than two megapixels. --Lmbuga 12:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question What do you mean by that? There was no argument about resolution so far. --Augustgeyler 17:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: I don't want a fight. If you want a fight, fight someone else. I'm not going to listen to you: I'm not always going to say what you want to hear.--Lmbuga 02:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • The next time you come looking for me with this intention, I will ask you to let me live in peace. --Lmbuga 03:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • OMG. I was just asking a simple question… --Augustgeyler 07:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Let's ease the tension. There's no need for aggression. --Pangalau 09:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Of course not. So I would just like to know what the user means with his two megapixel-argument. --Augustgeyler 12:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment cutted person on the right. I suggest retouch/crop Юрий Д.К. 19:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 16 Dec → Wed 24 Dec
  • Wed 17 Dec → Thu 25 Dec
  • Thu 18 Dec → Fri 26 Dec
  • Fri 19 Dec → Sat 27 Dec
  • Sat 20 Dec → Sun 28 Dec
  • Sun 21 Dec → Mon 29 Dec
  • Mon 22 Dec → Tue 30 Dec
  • Tue 23 Dec → Wed 31 Dec
  • Wed 24 Dec → Thu 01 Jan