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 April 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 April 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 April 23 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]] 04:58, 23 April 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).


April 23, 2025

[edit]

April 22, 2025

[edit]

April 21, 2025

[edit]

April 20, 2025

[edit]

April 19, 2025

[edit]

April 18, 2025

[edit]

April 17, 2025

[edit]

April 16, 2025

[edit]

April 15, 2025

[edit]

April 14, 2025

[edit]

April 13, 2025

[edit]

April 12, 2025

[edit]

April 11, 2025

[edit]

April 10, 2025

[edit]

April 09, 2025

[edit]

April 08, 2025

[edit]

April 07, 2025

[edit]

April 06, 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:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_kościół_Najświętszego_Serca_Pana_Jezusa_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sacred Heart church in Duszniki-Zdrój 1 --Jacek Halicki 06:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Could use some denoise in the darker areas and what happened to the trees in the lower Center? They look almost solarised --Grunpfnul 08:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 14:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
    Should be discussed --Grunpfnul 15:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. It doesn't need improvement to me. --Sebring12Hrs 08:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The solarised trees mentioned by Grunpfnul are an issue, but overall the picture is clearly over the bar for me. --Plozessor 11:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 13:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Collège_Saint-Jean_(Colmar)_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint-Jean College in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 21:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment looks good and would support, but should be rotated a 2-3 degrees clockwise. --Ianare 02:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
     Support I don't think it needs rotation. Good quality for me --Jakubhal 03:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support We should not try to overdo. -- Spurzem 05:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 13:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

File:2025-04-02_GV_RegBas_Weil_am_Rhein_004.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Photographed to the April 2nd, 2025 in the Weil am Rhein (Germany). By. --Ahmet Düz 19:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Foxus isn't perfect but good enouh for QI --MB-one 17:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but there are also some chromatic aberrations, and framing looks rather random with the tips of the fingers cut off. --Jakubhal 04:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal, plus chroma noise and borderline sharpness. --Plozessor 07:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other. --Sebring12Hrs 12:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 21:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Brand_Rhönsprudel_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fire with ignited empty pallets and empty crates and bottles at Rhönsprudel in Ebersburg. After the fire is under control white smoke due to water vapor. --St. Krug 18:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 08:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose PC is needed at left, look at the building. --Sebring12Hrs 10:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support not seeing any quality issues, composition is good. --Ianare 02:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 21:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Sava_River_at_Brod_-_Slavonski_Brod_(Republika_Srpska_-_Croatia_border).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sava River at Brod - Slavonski Brod --PetarM 13:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. IMO too much sky, but acceptable. --XRay 13:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The edges on both sides are very poor quality and distorted. The categories are unacceptable (see COM:OVERCAT). Nowhere close to a QI for me. Sorry --A.Savin 09:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A.Savin. --Sebring12Hrs 15:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 21:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Catania,_piazza_Europa_2024b.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Piazza Europa in Catania, Sicily. --Cayambe 06:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Very sharp image but the cut building bothers me a bit. Other opinion ? --Sebring12Hrs 08:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs, the composition with the cut-off building doesn't work. Also blue tint. --Plozessor 08:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 21:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Düsseldorf,_Statue_"Pallas_Athene"_--_2025_--_2584.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue “Pallas Athene” (Johannes Knubel, 1926) at the Tonhalle, Düsseldorf, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 10:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • I know that golden statues are always shine brightly in the sun, but here parts of the statue are blown out too much to ignore it. --Екатерина Борисова 02:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    • I improved the lights. You're right, golden statues are difficult, but the parts are very, very bright in real too. --XRay 06:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Perhaps the solution сould be to photograph them in cloudy weather? :) Thanks for the improvement, but I think that the highlights are still too bright. Feel free to move this image to CR, if you disagree. --Екатерина Борисова 01:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
        • The highlights on shiny metallic surfaces cannot be avoided and are not disturbing. --XRay 04:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина. The extremely high contrast could be reduced by soft lighting. This would be a common technique in the studio, but of course it can be very time- and labour-intensive outdoors. --Smial 09:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose One flaw has already been mentioned. I'm also bothered by the shadow (?) on the right and the bicycle. Further I would have tried to photograph the statue from a semi-frontal angle, but that's a matter of taste. -- Spurzem 11:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Nuja, als Übersichtsfoto würde ich das noch als nützlich gelten lassen. Es wird sicher noch einen Schwung weiterer Aufnahmen davon geben mit besserer Gestaltung. Aber es muss ja auch nicht jedes Bild ein Bapperl haben. --Smial 14:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Ich formulieren es mal auf Deutsch: Natürlich hast recht, dass nicht jedes Foto das „Bapperl“ benötigt. Mir persönlich ist es mittlerweile wichtig, dass meine Fotos ein gewisses Niveau erreichen. Gut, persönlicher Ehrgeiz. Aber noch wichtiger ist mir die Erwähnung der QI-Fotos in COM:OVERWRITE. Es steht im Widerspruch zu den Lizenzbedingungen, dass Dritte Bilder bearbeiten (vermeintlich verbessern) und dann das Originalbild überschreiben und das dann auch noch unter dem Namen des ursprünglichen Fotografen hier anbieten - statt es als neues Bild hochzuladen und sich dann als Bearbeiter zu nennen. (Das kann im ärgsten Fall sogar zu Problemen mit Rechten Dritter führen. Siehe z. B. Fotos von der Glaspyramide am Louvre, die nicht zentrales Motiv sein darf.) Das Bapperl ist ein sehr geringer Schutz, aber immerhin. Lieber wäre mir eine sichere Lösung, aber die sieht die Mediawiki-Software nicht vor. --XRay 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The picture has some (hard to avoid) issues, but in total it's over the bar for me. --Plozessor 10:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 15:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support ok to me.--Ermell 21:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 21:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Kamele_001_2024_08_09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Alpaca (Lama pacos) at Heidelberg Zoo --F. Riedelio 07:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The poor llama's hooves are cut off, sorry --Lvova 07:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I disagree. New version with cropping changed. IMO the hooves are not so important. --F. Riedelio 08:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Could tolerate missing hooves, but the picture is not sharp. --Plozessor 04:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 21:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Borovoe4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Burabay Lake in Burabay national park, Akmola Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Stanislav Sergeevich --Екатерина Борисова 02:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 03:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Low resolution regarding the camera used. Looks heavily downscaled. --Milseburg 06:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose. I have no problem with moderate downscaling, but such landscape photos should have at least 6 Mpixels (or 2000 pixels at the shorter edge of the image). Too bad, because I think the lighting and composition are very good. --Smial 12:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 21:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
     Support Per Plozessor. It's a shame that is downscaled, but the picture is very sharp and the compo is very good. --Sebring12Hrs 12:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It is apparently downscaled or cropped (though it still has almost 5 MP), but it is so perfect in all other ways that I can accept that. --Plozessor 04:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support For QIdefinitely okay. More categories would be welcome. --A.Savin 09:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much foliage in the foreground. --Tagooty 04:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 12:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Borovoe7.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Burabay Lake in Burabay national park, Akmola Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Stanislav Sergeevich --Екатерина Борисова 02:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 03:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI disagree. Looks alsa downscaled regarding the possibilities of the camera used. --Milseburg 07:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. A higher resolution would be nice, but it's ‘good enough’ for me. The colour gradient in the sky is not so nice, it indicates clipping in individual colour channels. The overexposure in the sun and its reflections in the water is ok though. --Smial 12:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other. --Sebring12Hrs 20:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
    After reflection I think the quality is over the QI-bar. When I see other pictures, I think this one is QI regarding the sharpness, light and composition. --Sebring12Hrs 10:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose really like the composition but the quality isn't there given the capabilities of the camera. --Ianare 02:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Pyramid_roof_of_Piramide_Shopping_Center_(Blok_44,_Belgrade).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Glass roof of Piramide Shopping Center --PetarM 11:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Cropped --A S M Jobaer 13:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support So what? --Екатерина Борисова 01:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange composition and low overall quality (low detail, completely blown sky, fringes+halos around the windows). --Plozessor 04:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, I was also tempted to start a discussion after seeing this one-word review, but overall I agree with Plozessor Jakubhal 04:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 07:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Keravanjoki_near_Virnatie.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Keravanjoki near Virnatie in Vantaa --Plozessor 02:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Trees in the background are overexposed, hope you can fix it. --Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I really don't understand what is the problem here. This photo is really good. Plozessor improved it and I think it is good now. --Sebring12Hrs 09:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
    I'm still not sure about highlights here. Let's hear other opinions. --Екатерина Борисова 03:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The trees in the background are bright, but with the exception of one of the trunks (which is a tiny part of the photo) they are not overexposed. Overall, good enough quality for me --Jakubhal 06:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support overall quality and composition are good for me. --Ianare 02:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jakubhal 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 15 Apr → Wed 23 Apr
  • Wed 16 Apr → Thu 24 Apr
  • Thu 17 Apr → Fri 25 Apr
  • Fri 18 Apr → Sat 26 Apr
  • Sat 19 Apr → Sun 27 Apr
  • Sun 20 Apr → Mon 28 Apr
  • Mon 21 Apr → Tue 29 Apr
  • Tue 22 Apr → Wed 30 Apr
  • Wed 23 Apr → Thu 01 May