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 May 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 May 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 May 27 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]] 14:10, 27 May 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).


May 27, 2026

[edit]

May 26, 2026

[edit]

May 25, 2026

[edit]

May 24, 2026

[edit]

May 23, 2026

[edit]

May 22, 2026

[edit]

May 21, 2026

[edit]

May 20, 2026

[edit]

May 19, 2026

[edit]

May 18, 2026

[edit]

May 16, 2026

[edit]

May 15, 2026

[edit]

May 14, 2026

[edit]

May 13, 2026

[edit]

May 12, 2026

[edit]

May 11, 2026

[edit]

May 10, 2026

[edit]

May 9, 2026

[edit]

May 3, 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:The_Virgin_and_Child_with_St._Anne_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Virgin and Child with St. Anne by Leonardo da Vinci --Wilfredor 12:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    WB looks off, very blueish picture compared to others of the same painting --Benjism89 17:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
    yes because the las louvre Retoration --Wilfredor 16:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose I doubt it, I can't find any picture of this painting with colors like yours, nor did I find records of a recent restoration which would have changed colors. I'm opposing this nom, so that you can take it to CR if you want --Benjism89 17:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    it was restored and now look more blue, From what I have seen, the yellowish photos are the ones you find on the internet, while the ones that look bluer are the ones taken by photographers who upload them directly to commons. The same thing happened to me when I saw the Mona Lisa, I had this yellowish image in my mind since I was a child, when I saw it I thought, what is this! --Wilfredor 03:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

File:2026-05-25-Ringeltaube_vor_dem_Kölner_Dom-068873.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wood pigeon in front of Cologne Cathedral --Superbass 14:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 14:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not agree. Too litle. I don't like the composition. Not even the pigeon is visible whole. The background is annoying. Sorry --Lmbuga 17:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, per Lmbuga. --Milseburg 14:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 14:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Church_of_the_Divine_Mercy,_bird's_eye_view.._,3_Siostry_Faustyny_street._Lagiewniki,_Krakow,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Divine Mercy, bird's eye view, 3 Siostry Faustyny street. Lagiewniki, Krakow, Poland --Igor123121 05:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 05:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The same image is already a QI. There's no dfference between these images except for slightly different names. --Екатерина Борисова 02:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose While the binary files are not entirely identical, they are so similar that deletion of this candidate file would be more reasonable than its QI promotion. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    They are entirely identical - just open both and click from one to another. The only difference is the number of punctuation marks in the file name. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
    In this case, a deletion request should be launched for this unnecessary duplicate image. However, a binary comparison of the two files showed some differences, even though I cannot see any difference between the files either. Could the author please elaborate why this duplicate is different from the version that is a QI already? Otherwise, it is my intention to request its deletion. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Bronisław_Czech_Academy_of_Physical_Culture,,,_unfinished_building,_Czyżyny,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bronisław Czech Academy of Physical Culture, unfinished building, Czyżyny, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 04:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 12:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose According to EXIF data (and if compared just visually) this image is identical to these two (1, 2), both are already a QI. So this image was uploaded three times with slightly different names and slightly different crop. I don't think this is a good practice in Commons - moreover, in the future these pictures may well be nominated for deletion as duplicates. Also I don't think it's worth encouraging such uploads by assigning a QI status several times to the same picture actually. --Екатерина Борисова 02:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Palacio_de_los_Arzobispos,_Narbona,_Francia,_2023-01-08,_DD_126.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palace of Archbishops, Narbonne, France --Poco a poco 05:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I think the uneven perspective is too much to be corrected, sorry --Sashimi-b 02:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I don't understand the opposing vote. --Sebring12Hrs 22:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Neither do I, thank you. --Poco a poco 17:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2026-5_-_A_tulip_blooming_in_Manezhnaya_Square1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow - 2026 - A tulip blooming in Manezhnaya Square --Юрий Д.К. 21:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too soft --Vitorperrut555 22:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I think that the picture should be QI. --Lmbuga 08:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me. --Rjcastillo 21:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support --Wilfredor 15:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed, clipping colour channels in highlights, rather low DOF, probably downscaled. --Smial 20:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I disagree with all, sorry. And I never downscale my photos. Downscaling it is a common thing on Flickr by greedy authors, however. Юрий Д.К. 20:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
 Comment I do not wish to dispute your opinion. Objectively speaking, the depth of field is quite shallow, as it does not suffice to keep the entire blossom in focus. In the area of ​​the blossom, the red and blue color channels are objectively clipping—which leads to color distortion. Just take a look at the histogram; clipping is caused by overexposure. I wrote "probably downscaled"; if that is not the case, then it is simply a very tight crop. However, the rules state that, as a general rule—with a few exceptions—photos should be uploaded at full sensor resolution. Of course, a tulip is typically not very shy and won't fly away; if one were to crop it as tightly as is often necessary with photos of wild birds or butterflies—simply because one cannot get any closer—the tulip blossom would actually fall below my "magic A4 print size" criterion. --Smial 11:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support support --Pdanese 10:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I do not assume that color clipping distorts the colors too strongly. However, most of the image consists of the very blurry stem and the background. I personally would crop this image to about 4 megapixels. But I can understand that there may be different opinions. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Grzegórzki,,_Wesoła_widoczna_z_lotu_ptaka,_Kraków,_2026.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination blokus1 --Igor123121 04:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 04:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image itself is good enough, but I'm very confused by the file history and its description. --Екатерина Борисова 01:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина Борисова --Milseburg 14:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This should be reverted and fixed. It is not acceptable to overwrite someone else’s image and change the file name in a way that makes the change harder to notice. Jakubhal 16:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: @Milseburg: @Jakubhal: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Of course, I have restored it. I have no idea how it happened; the system probably froze while I was uploading my file, which was originally named '1-2' (the same as the overwritten one). The system crashed, and instead of uploading again under the correct name, the file overwrote the existing one. I am very sorry for the inconvenience. --Igor123121 18:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Igor123121: Thanks for fixing this. Jakubhal 03:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
     Comment It's clear that you didn't do this on purpose, but by mistake. But you should ask someone to restore the original image correctly, because right now the picture is original, and the name is from your picture. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think we should reject the nomination right away, as this is no longer the image under discussion. Jakubhal 03:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Wait, there's need to restore the original image correctly first. Maybe one of the admins will be able to help Igor do this. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
    You are right. But Igor123121 has filemover rights, so he can do it by himself. @Igor123121: I would suggest a less generic name, such as "Selected blue Blokus pieces.jpg". Judging by the file history, you are not the first person to overwrite this image. -- Jakubhal 14:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jakubhal: I moved it under the name you suggested. The ticket can be closed; there's no point in fixing --Igor123121 14:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I am not sure what you mean by the ticket. If you want to close this discussion just use {{Withdraw}} -- Jakubhal 15:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too small resolution for a jpg file --Mosbatho 21:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Inappropiate filetype. Also, a confusing file (page). --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --PantheraLeo1359531 16:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Mariana_Markowskiego_street,,._view_to_N,_Czyżyny,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mariana Markowskiego street, view to N, Czyżyny, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 03:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plasmium 10:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A strange big whitish spot on the left side (on the white building and on trees). I don't know exactly what it is (lens flare?), but it doesn't look appropriate for a QI. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 01:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 13:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Congregation_of_the_Sisters_Servants_of_the_Starowiejski_Religious_Order._Provincial_House,_.12_Kazimierza_Kordylewskiego_street,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Congregation of the Sisters Servants of the Starowiejski Religious Order. Provincial House, 12 Kazimierza Kordylewskiego street, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 03:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plasmium 21:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I thimk WB should be corrected here. Deep blue shadows in sunny day and purpleish right building look quite unnatural. --Екатерина Борисова 03:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: ✓ Done --Igor123121 14:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
    Better, but now it become a bit too yellow :) Try one more time, please. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 19 May → Wed 27 May
  • Wed 20 May → Thu 28 May
  • Thu 21 May → Fri 29 May
  • Fri 22 May → Sat 30 May
  • Sat 23 May → Sun 31 May
  • Sun 24 May → Mon 01 Jun
  • Mon 25 May → Tue 02 Jun
  • Tue 26 May → Wed 03 Jun
  • Wed 27 May → Thu 04 Jun