Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

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

Purpose

[edit]

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

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

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

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

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

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

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

Image quality
[edit]

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

Composition and lighting
[edit]

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

Value
[edit]

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

How to nominate

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of nominations

[edit]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages), other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Good voting practices

[edit]
  1. Do not have an image moved to consensual review ("Discuss") unless someone else added a vote with which you disagree.
  2. If you think the image meets QI criteria, use "Promotion" right away.
  3. If you think the image does not meet QI criteria and the issues cannot be solved, use "Decline" right away.
  4. If instead you believe that the issues can be solved, leave a comment without changing the status (keep it as Nomination).
  5. Do not add new votes under already promoted or declined images if you agree with the decision. The bot checks the date of the last comment, so this only delays the result.
  6. If a comment raises an unresolved issue, promoting is generally considered impolite. Only promote if the issue is clearly minor, fixed, or incorrect - and say so briefly. If you’re not sure, add a comment (don't change status). Change to "Discuss" only once conflicting votes appear.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 2026.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 2026.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 30 2026 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

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

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

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

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

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 12:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

If you are not ready to Promote or Decline an image, you may leave a Comment instead.

If someone else has already promoted or declined an image and you disagree, you may cast an opposite voice or use Discuss — this will move the image to the Community Review section.

If you agree with a previous decision, there is no need to cast the same vote again, as doing so only delays the final closure of the nomination.

Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


April 30, 2026

[edit]

April 29, 2026

[edit]

April 28, 2026

[edit]

April 27, 2026

[edit]

April 26, 2026

[edit]

April 25, 2026

[edit]

April 24, 2026

[edit]

April 23, 2026

[edit]

April 22, 2026

[edit]

April 21, 2026

[edit]

April 20, 2026

[edit]

April 19, 2026

[edit]

April 18, 2026

[edit]

April 17, 2026

[edit]

April 16, 2026

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Cyclingworld_Cyclocross_Race_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170933).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cyclingworld Cyclocross Race 2024 in Meerbusch --MB-one 06:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Stadtgliederung 12:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me the tapes are disturbing. Stadtgliederung's vote cannot be counted - not enough edits from this account --Jakubhal 18:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Efremov_-_2026_-_Pine_tree_crown,_the_City_Grove.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Efremov - 2026 - Pinus sylvestris crown, the City Grove --Юрий Д.К. 19:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Looks a bit overprocessed to me --Aciarium 09:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    Lets discuss please. Only slight light correction here. --Юрий Д.К. 19:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 09:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Castillo_de_Colomares,_Benalmádena,_Málaga,_España,_2023-05-18,_DD_74.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castillo de Colomares, Benalmádena, Málaga, Spain --Poco a poco 06:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 06:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Significant perspective distortion IMHO --Gzzz 19:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Gzzz, sorry. --Harlock81 (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ New version, FYI, too, Gzzz, Harlock81 Poco a poco 06:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
    It is better, for sure, but the distortion of the towers is still very high. I don't think that it can be amended.--Harlock81 08:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are many borderline cases where images are declined because of PC-related distortion; this, however, is a quite extreme case in my eyes. --Aciarium 09:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Aciarium 09:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Pacific_reef_heron_(Egretta_sacra)_light_morph_in_flight_Rock_Islands.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pacific reef heron (Egretta sacra) light morph --Charlesjsharp 20:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 01:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not very experienced in evaluating bird photos, but it seems to me that the wings of this heron are blown out and lack details. Other opinions? --Екатерина Борисова 03:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it’s a good picture, but not QI: there are green CAs on the lower edges of the head and chest. The edges of the wings are poorly defined. There’s a lack of detail on the wings.--Lmbuga 21:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 20:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Krone-Margarete-von-York-Domschatz-Aachen.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Crown of Margaret of York, Aachen Cathedral Treasury --Mituxy 10:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Very little is in focus here, and the image is noisy. Sorry --Benjism89 16:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
    • This Image is taken at ISO 9000 - there is a low amount of noise for this circumstance Grunpfnul (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Elsewhere, I received a lot of praise for this image, so I am submitting it for discussion. --Mituxy 17:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough under the circumstances of low light photography Grunpfnul (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Benjism89--Lmbuga 21:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Irnsum,_dorp_in_de_gemeente_Leeuwarden._18-03-2026._(actm.)_38.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Village Irnsum De Leare, national monument (farm) at Learewei 22. (side of the house.) --Agnes Monkelbaan 03:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 04:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 06:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose You can call it pixel peeping again (while here it surely was not), but there're strong CA's on the tree. --Екатерина Борисова 03:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
 Comment I don't know who has upset you so much that you've been making such harsh judgments so often lately. The flaw you're criticizing in this particular example is really very minor. It’s also a axial chromatic aberration, which isn’t nearly as easy to fix as a lateral chromatic aberration . On the contrary, I’ve seen several post-processing attempts where people apparently tried to fix it with some kind of “automagic” masking function, and the results were terrible. --Smial 11:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
 Comment No one upset me, thank you. However, it seems strange to me that in some cases comments are made about CA's, which can only be seen by closely examining the full-size photo (see the link), and this is perceived normally, and in other cases, the comments about the CA's, which are visible even on the thumbnail, are called harsh judgments. It seems to me that the QIC criteria should be the same for everyone. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Smial has already explained an important technical distinction: not all fringing has the same relevance. Obvious lateral CA (even small) affecting the main subject is one thing. Minor axial/purple fringing on out-of-focus background branches is another. That is exactly why context matters when evaluating images. Treating every trace of fringing as equally serious is not a realistic or consistent standard. I would also prefer to keep each discussion focused on the current nomination rather than repeatedly bringing disagreements from other reviews into new threads. Jakubhal 03:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Here the purple fringe was not somewhere on out-of-focus background branches, but on the thickest branch in the foreground, and this made it quite a serious issue in my eyes. It's quite curious what kind of context made it unnoticeable. And yes, I would also prefer to discuss each photo separately, if I hadn't been poked twice in a row that I somehow make comments too often. However, in this case (as in most of the previous ones), the issue has been fixed, so I think that there's no reason to discuss it anymore. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Ca’s removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough --Smial 11:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you Agnes Monkelbaan. Good quality --Jakubhal 06:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you and the other voters for your support.--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Looks better, thank you. I removed my opposing vote. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Екатерина Борисова 01:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Tours_-_Jardin_François_Sicard.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tours (Indre-et-Loire, France) - François Sicard public garden in late afternoon, with the cathedral towers in the background --Benjism89 05:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Strong contrast. Unnatural towers and upper side of the buildings. In real life, they don’t look like that, nor do they resemble what you see --Lmbuga 12:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not really sure what you mean, these buildings do look this way, although late afternoon light makes them warmer. It's indeed a very contrasted scene. I've reduced a bit the contrast, hope you find it better now --Benjism89 16:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Very beautiful colors and lights. Sharp at normal size. --Sebring12Hrs 06:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Not sharp to me, but I don't know what “normal” size means. With 1,265 × 2,048 pixels seems sharp, but you never look at other people’s photos at that size--Lmbuga 21:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Brest_Hohalia_street_2024-12-25_4092.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --

File:Amsterdam,_Herengracht_2tm10_met_RM1693tm5_IMG_0904_2026-04-06_09.42.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Amsterdam-NL, Herengracht 2 to 10 --Michielverbeek 15:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 17:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp rnough, and the right side is blurry, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 01:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Focus is to the houses at Herengracht 2 to 10, not to the right part --Michielverbeek 17:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --

File:Crested_Lark_in_Tal_Chhapar_Sanctuary_November_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Crested Lark (Galerida cristata) in Tal Chhapar Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 09:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Aciarium 12:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks o.k. to me. --Ermell 15:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Ermell. --Harlock81 21:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Aciarium. Image guidelines state: Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. This is a 24MP camera and this image is only 3.5MP. --E bailey 17:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I don't think this image is downsampled. It was taken with an 800 mm lens, likely from a considerable distance. The relatively small size is probably due to cropping rather than downsampling. That said, my support is only weak, as the final resolution is indeed quite low. Jakubhal 17:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Whether it’s heavy cropping or downsampling, in the end there’s less information for archival preservation. It’s not clear to me that this was downsampled. I’ll adjust my feedback and say that I’m more being critical of the relatively low resolution and level of detail which Aciarum pointed out. Heavy cropping has a disadvantage for the project’s archival purposes. I guess I’m re-opening the 2MP rule for debate. I don’t find this shot “hard to take” and would think it could be achieved with higher resolution. -- E bailey 19:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose per E bailey --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:12, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I’ve been missing hearing from Tisha Mukherjee. If Tisha Mukherjee says it hasn’t been downsampled, I’ll take her (or his) word for it. If Tisha Mukherjee doesn’t say anything...--Lmbuga 21:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)--Lmbuga 21:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support While I wait to hear what Tisha Mukherjee have to say, I trust and believe this is a good picture--Lmbuga 22:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 21:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 22 Apr → Thu 30 Apr
  • Thu 23 Apr → Fri 01 May
  • Fri 24 Apr → Sat 02 May
  • Sat 25 Apr → Sun 03 May
  • Sun 26 Apr → Mon 04 May
  • Mon 27 Apr → Tue 05 May
  • Tue 28 Apr → Wed 06 May
  • Wed 29 Apr → Thu 07 May
  • Thu 30 Apr → Fri 08 May