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 August 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 August 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 August 20 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]] 12:04, 20 August 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).


August 20, 2025

[edit]

August 19, 2025

[edit]

August 18, 2025

[edit]

August 17, 2025

[edit]

August 16, 2025

[edit]

August 15, 2025

[edit]

August 14, 2025

[edit]

August 13, 2025

[edit]

August 12, 2025

[edit]

August 11, 2025

[edit]

August 10, 2025

[edit]

August 9, 2025

[edit]

August 8, 2025

[edit]

August 6, 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:Hoogstraten_Sint-Katharinakerk_altaar_Sint-Katharina_beeld_2025-07-03-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of an angel in the St. Catherine's Church of Hoogstraten --ReneeWrites 23:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 01:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, the eyes are blurry, but the knees are focused --Lmbuga 01:49, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Per [Lmbuga]: main subject parts are really blurry. --Syntaxys 04:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Västerhejde_kyrka_September_2024_08.jpg

[edit]

File:Open_wing_resting_of_Acraea_issoria_(Hübner,_1819)_-_Yellow_Coster_WLB_MG_4781.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Open wing resting of Acraea issoria (Hübner, 1819) - Yellow CosterI,: --SVKMBFLY 06:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Ercé 14:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Needs categorisation. --Lvova 20:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_nectaring_of_Pieris_canidia_(Linnaeus,_1768)_-_Asian_Cabbage_White_WLB_DSC9655.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing nectaring of Pieris canidia (Linnaeus, 1768) - Asian Cabbage WhiteI,: --SVKMBFLY 06:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 06:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Needs categorisation. --Lvova 20:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_resting_of_Lethe_bhairava_(Moore,_1858)_-_Rusty_Forester_WLB_MG_4943.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing resting of Lethe bhairava (Moore, 1858) - Rusty ForesterI,: --SVKMBFLY 06:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Romzig 17:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Needs categorisation. --Lvova 20:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Abejarucos_chico_(Merops_pusillus),_reserva_natural_Masái_Mara,_Kenia,_2024-05-20,_DD_105.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Little bee-eater (Merops pusillus), Masai Mara, Kenya --Poco a poco 05:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, the subject is blurry. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Not so sure about that, I applied some sharpening, QI IMHO, please, let's discuss in CR as you didn't give me a chance to improve it prior to declining it --Poco a poco 19:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It seems ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 14:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Sebring12Hrs 14:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_puddling_on_dung_of_Parasarpa_zayla_(Westwood,_1850)_-_Bicolor_Commodore_WLB_MG_4914.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Open wing puddling on dung of Parasarpa zayla (Westwood, 1850) - Bicolor CommodoreI,: --SVKMBFLY 02:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs better categorisation. --Lvova 22:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Bengal_tiger_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_47.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panthera tigris tigris (Bengal tiger) in Sanjay Dubri Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 08:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Awkward pose, too similar with other nominated pics. --Kallerna 13:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I'm agree with D-Kuru (in the other picture), but not with you, @Kallerna: : Animals have facial expressions. This is different --Lmbuga 14:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good expression on the tiger, and good sharpness. The description needs improvement: is the tiger climbing the tree or scratching or...?. I would consider a portrait crop to remove the distracting blurred vegetation on top right. Mild dehazing might bring out the colours of the tiger. --Tagooty 08:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  • @Tagooty: I have uploaded a cropped and edited version of this image. Hope you like it. --Tisha Mukherjee 11:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Much improved, thank you. @Kallerna and Lmbuga: you may like to review the new version. --Tagooty 15:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is still four really similar nominations. I don't see any reason to promote all of them. --Kallerna 06:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • It is an idea from FI, here similar images have equal rights. Lvova 09:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality.--Lmbuga 19:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image and good quality -- Spurzem 17:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't mind the "pose", but I do have a bit of an issue with the technical quality. It's a bit too soft, some details are washed out and there's a bit of purple chromatic aberrations on the face.--Peulle 09:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 09:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Tour_(Pise).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Leaning Tower of Pisa (Italy). --Gzen92 07:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Underexposed. --Sebring12Hrs 17:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Gzen92 08:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Now ok. --Sebring12Hrs 09:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Now the clouds are too overexposed. The foreground (buildings und grass) needs to be brightened selectively and more sensitively. --Carschten 08:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Better? Gzen92 07:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment better, thank you! --Carschten 23:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support ok now. --Ermell 15:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Carschten 23:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Bitonto_-_Guglia_dell'Immacolata_&_Concattedrale_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bitonto (Apulia, Italy) - The Immaculate Conception column and the Southern façade of the Saint Valentine co-cathedral --Benjism89 04:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The column is smooth and distorted. --Lvova 14:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose pls discuss. --Lvova 10:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 17:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp column.--Ermell 15:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 15:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

File:NW_Wide_Distant_Union_Church_Ooty_Aug25_A7CR_06373.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Union Church from the NW, wide view, Ooty, The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu --Tagooty 01:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment tilted to the right; if the church is the main motive, the selected image section makes no sense in my view --Carschten 20:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • @Carschten: ✓ Done New version with tilt fixed. The image shows the church in the wider context - the church in the valley dwarfed by the surrounding hills and trees. This view is a complement to the close views showing only the building. --Tagooty 08:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Moving to CR for other opinions, assuming @Carschten: is opposing. --Tagooty 04:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for rotating it! I'm still not entirely happy with the image section, which is why I haven't voted yet, but it certainly makes sense to get other opinions! --Carschten 08:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 08:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Эрмитаж,_экспонаты,_первый_этаж_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Previously unassessed. --Lvova 07:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition: half of the glass display is cut off. --Peulle 07:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Why do you need the glass display here? --Lvova 09:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • It should be in or out, not something in between.--Peulle 09:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Other opinions? --Lvova 10:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support If we crop the glass display off then we have half the window. If we include the full glass display then we probably have half of some object behind it. Here we have the statue in the center, the crop seems good to me. Exposure is a bit uneven (the statue bright in the middle but darker at the top and bottom), that could probably be improved, but it's still good as it is. --Plozessor 11:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

 Comment PC would be good. --Sebring12Hrs 18:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 11:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-06-14_Event,_Stadtfest_Erfurt,_Krämerbrückenfest_2025_STP_7062.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Krämerbrückenfest 2025: The Raccoonz --Stepro 09:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Highlights should be reduced --Poco a poco 16:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Tisha Mukherjee 05:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tisha Mukherjee, please, respect other reviewers' feedback. Again: the highlights should be reduced. --Poco a poco 20:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment lights are already reduced, histogram shows no overexposure, light parts in photo are light because they were are in reality --Stepro 08:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
      •  Comment I think it's misleading to use the histogram as an argument in such cases. Lost details remain lost details, even if you darken the highlights in post-production to create a more harmonious impression. Please don't get me wrong, I think you've already made the best of the image and it's certainly usable. But overexposure is a flaw that, in my opinion, does not deserve a QIC badge. I am familiar with such lighting situations and they are manageable. --Smial 11:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes there are strong highlights, but I believe reducing them further would make them look unnatural --Benjism89 10:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sunlit parts are blown out (at least here in the JPG all these pixels are #FFFFFFF with zero detail). --Plozessor 11:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is strong overexposed and I don't think that it can be improved. -- Spurzem 16:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It's just an outdoor situation in summer, otherwise by Benjism89. --Sandro Halank 19:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Harsh lighting, per others. --Tagooty 04:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: I am really sorry, somehow missed your comment. --Tisha Mukherjee 18:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  • No worries, nothing wild, if you use QICvote these things happen often. To avoid that I refresh often the page. --Poco a poco 07:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This sun on skin is very natural, not burnt to me. Per Benjism. --Sebring12Hrs 03:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality for such difficult conditions -- George Chernilevsky 10:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose burnt highlights, portrait orientation would be better. Otherwise ok, but I remember several festivalsommer images been declined, because small parts of the instrument heve been cropped... --Smial 14:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 04:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 12 Aug → Wed 20 Aug
  • Wed 13 Aug → Thu 21 Aug
  • Thu 14 Aug → Fri 22 Aug
  • Fri 15 Aug → Sat 23 Aug
  • Sat 16 Aug → Sun 24 Aug
  • Sun 17 Aug → Mon 25 Aug
  • Mon 18 Aug → Tue 26 Aug
  • Tue 19 Aug → Wed 27 Aug
  • Wed 20 Aug → Thu 28 Aug