Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.


Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.


Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

[edit]

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 edits, 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.

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 July 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 July 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 July 17 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]] 08:07, 17 July 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
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).


July 17, 2025

[edit]

July 16, 2025

[edit]

July 15, 2025

[edit]

July 14, 2025

[edit]

July 13, 2025

[edit]

July 12, 2025

[edit]

July 11, 2025

[edit]

July 10, 2025

[edit]

July 9, 2025

[edit]

July 8, 2025

[edit]

July 7, 2025

[edit]

July 6, 2025

[edit]

July 4, 2025

[edit]

July 2, 2025

[edit]

July 1, 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:Fiat_500_(1957-1975)_IMG_3361.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fiat 500 in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 18:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The back of the car is a bit blurry. --Sebring12Hrs 23:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
    • Is it really that worse? At least in A4 size it doesn't seem to be a problem for me. --Alexander-93 17:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support possibly a tiny bit too denoised, but good enough overall. --Smial 10:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The sharpness is not the best but enoough. -- Spurzem 14:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Not sharp --Jakubhal 17:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nowhere really sharp. --Plozessor 03:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Madygen_Sary-Tash_Valley_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Madygen State Natural Monument, Batken District, Kyrgyzstan. By User:Nefesh03 --Екатерина Борисова 22:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • It's a good picture, but it has two dust spots and some CAs (see notes) --Lmbuga 00:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
    • I can retouch dust spots (though it's not my picture), but I can't remove CA's. Will it be enough? I think these CA's are not too significant. --Екатерина Борисова 01:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to promove the picture with CA's. Nor will I object. I can work on the picture, but if I work on the picture, I can't promotion. Let me know if you want me to work on the picture. --Lmbuga 23:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
        • I may not get a successful rework. In that case I will do nothing.--Lmbuga 23:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
          • I've removed dust spots. I would be grateful if you manage to remove CA's. Hope someone will support the result. --Екатерина Борисова 03:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
            • ✓ Done --Lmbuga 22:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. --Smial 09:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 17:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Ljøelva_descending_down_to_Sunnylvsfjorden_in_Ljøen,_Stranda,_Møre_og_Romsdal,_Norway,_2025_May.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ljøelva down to Sunnylvsfjorden, Stranda, Norway --Ximonic 11:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    CAs. --Sebring12Hrs 12:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
     Support It is an impressive image in good quality. There are only very few CAs to be seen, but they can certainly be removed well. --Syntaxys 13:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Ok so CR. --Sebring12Hrs 14:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support CA is negligibly low. Good quality, thanks for contributing this one. --Mosbatho 08:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok, after the edit --Jakubhal 17:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Coastal_landscape_in_Lekneset,_Ørsta,_Møre_og_Romsdal,_Norway,_2025_May.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lekneset, Ørsta, Norway --Ximonic 11:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 12:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose CAs. See note. --Sebring12Hrs 12:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
    *  Support CA is negligibly low. --Mosbatho 08:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)~
  •  Support Ok, after the edit --Jakubhal 17:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Breng_in_Stryn,_Vestland,_Norway,_2025_May_-_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Breng, Stryn, Norway --Ximonic 11:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 12:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CAs. --Sebring12Hrs 12:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
    • @Sebring12Hrs: Please, where are the CAs in this image? I searched at least 5 min the whole image … --Syntaxys 19:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support There is minimal CA at the mountain edge in the upper left corner, but not a reason to decline this otherwise good image IMO. --Plozessor 03:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor. --Smial 17:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support CA is negligibly low. --Mosbatho 08:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Surcos_prehistóricos,_Clapham_Junction,_isla_de_Malta,_Malta,_2021-08-21,_DD_77.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Prehistoric ruts, Clapham Junction, Malta Island, Malta --Poco a poco 07:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The background should be more in focus IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 11:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I disagree again here, the subject is sharp, of course there is always room for improvement, but this shot is IMHO clearly over the bart --Poco a poco 11:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Subject is sharp, was thinking about the brightness but I think that is ok too. --Plozessor 03:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Surcos_prehistóricos,_Clapham_Junction,_isla_de_Malta,_Malta,_2021-08-21,_DD_74.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Prehistoric ruts, Clapham Junction, Malta Island, Malta --Poco a poco 06:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Too much areas are out of focus. --Sebring12Hrs 11:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
    The subject is in focus. Why do you decline more of the same series when the first one passed the CR? --Poco a poco 11:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Because I don't agree with them! --Sebring12Hrs 08:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Scheune_in_Pettstadt_(Kirchlauter).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Barn in Pettstadt (Kirchlauter) --Plozessor 03:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 04:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Is the white balance correct here? I see the picture extremely yellow-green. --Syntaxys 04:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Please do not reset an already promoted image to nomination.
    I think that white balance is ok, it was a very sunny day and it looked interesting in reality which is why I took the picture in the first place. --Plozessor 04:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
    It wasn't my intention to put the picture back, I just wanted to comment on it. I know that very sunny days lead to yellowish pictures, but here I find it extreme. --Syntaxys 06:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It may be due to external circumstances, but in my opinion a picture with this color cast is not a quality image. Perhaps it is possible to improve. -- Spurzem 08:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem and Syntaxys: Uploaded a new version, plesae have a look. Btw, adding a comment to a promoted or declined image resets it to nomination; to comment you need to use manual editing, to challenge the decision you must use "Discuss". --Plozessor 03:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don' t see any issue with WB. --Sebring12Hrs 08:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. The very first version was perhaps a little oversaturated and of course needed the perspective correction, but clearly had the more natural colors. The current version looks like an HDR accident to me. --Smial 11:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @Smial: I took the previous version, changed the white balance and uploaded it again. No other processing done. Can you tell me where you see unnatural colors or processing artifacts now? --Plozessor 15:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Ah, you meant the very first version. Well, that was noisy. Personally I like the previous version (that per others had issues with WB) the most.

File:Интерьеры_главного_здания_Главной_понижающей_подстанции_Волховстроя_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Railings of the main staircase of the Main Step-Down Station of Volkhovstroy --Lvova 06:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Giles Laurent 07:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Quality is OK, but insufficient categorization for me. But this is fixable --A.Savin 09:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Tsentralnyy_prospekt,_Zelenograd.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Road in Moscow --Perituss 03:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Weak promotion. Disturbing post at the left. --XRay 05:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think that the picture lack sharpness a bit, but the main issue is, yes, disturbing lamp post and wires on the left. --Екатерина Борисова 00:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Street lamp is gone. Would it be better? --Perituss 12:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The tower is leaning. PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 07:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Perspective is corrected. --Perituss 20:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes thanks. Sharpness is indeed borderline, but not so bad. --Sebring12Hrs 00:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose After such PC. Lvova 06:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Lvova 06:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

File:20221016_Alter_Friedhof_Ulm_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Gravestone on the old cemetery in Ulm --FlocciNivis 09:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 21:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice image, but it seems to me that tree trunk and leaves are too bright, almost blown out. Is it good fior QI? I'd like to hear some other opinions. --Екатерина Борисова 03:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
implicite oppose --Smial 12:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    • Just repeat for others:
    • The histogram shows the following:
      • The majority of pixels are concentrated in the shadows and midtones (the left and central range of the histogram).
      • There is a slight peak at the far right end, especially in the red channel — this indicates the presence of a few bright areas, but not critical overexposure.
      • There is no large peak "clipped" to the right edge, which usually signals heavy overexposure (when details are completely lost in white).
    • Conclusion: the image contains some bright spots (sunlight on the leaves and the stone), but there is no significant overexposure. The exposure balance is generally well preserved. Lvova 06:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment I decreased the highlights now in exposure. Thank you all for the detailed feedback --FlocciNivis 20:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for me. Yes, there are small burnt areas, but that cannot really be avoided in the situation unless with HDR, which again doesn't work without a tripod. The strong contrasts, caused by the weather and light situation, create a unique atmosphere that I like. --Plozessor 09:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина. Although the burnt lights are not very large, they do stand out and particularly affect the tomb as the main motif. --Smial 12:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина.--Lmbuga 00:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The compo is really good. --Sebring12Hrs 07:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 07:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 09 Jul → Thu 17 Jul
  • Thu 10 Jul → Fri 18 Jul
  • Fri 11 Jul → Sat 19 Jul
  • Sat 12 Jul → Sun 20 Jul
  • Sun 13 Jul → Mon 21 Jul
  • Mon 14 Jul → Tue 22 Jul
  • Tue 15 Jul → Wed 23 Jul
  • Wed 16 Jul → Thu 24 Jul
  • Thu 17 Jul → Fri 25 Jul