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 March 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 March 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 March 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]] 04:18, 20 March 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).


March 20, 2025

[edit]

March 19, 2025

[edit]

March 18, 2025

[edit]

March 17, 2025

[edit]

March 16, 2025

[edit]

March 15, 2025

[edit]

March 14, 2025

[edit]

March 13, 2025

[edit]

March 12, 2025

[edit]

March 11, 2025

[edit]

March 10, 2025

[edit]

March 9, 2025

[edit]

March 8, 2025

[edit]

March 7, 2025

[edit]

March 6, 2025

[edit]

February 25, 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:Kreuzweg_Untersteinbach_13_Trauern.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stations of the Cross near Untersteinbach (Rauhenebrach), station XIII --Plozessor 04:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 04:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In my opinion, the image is too bright and lacks contrast. However, this could be improved. At the moment, it's not a QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem: Uploaded a new version, please check. --Plozessor 04:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Pine_warbler_(84674).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pine warbler in Central Park --Rhododendrites 16:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Nice shot, but looks a little blurry. --Phyrexian 18:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support seems good --A S M Jobaer 13:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Phyrexian, seems like a failed attempt to compensate motion blur with sharpening. Beautiful and useful picture but IMO not QI. --Plozessor 04:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Pučišća_BW_2024-10-04_12-05-53.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Croatia, harbour of Pučišća on the island of Brač --Berthold Werner 10:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • CA on the lamp. --Plánovací kalendář 12:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
    • No CA visible in 1:1 view, therefore not relevant. --Berthold Werner 16:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
      •  Oppose I think it's still apparent on the lamp but I might be wrong, let's discuss. --Plánovací kalendář 13:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any CAs, sharpness and perspective are ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 09:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is 3-pixels-wide purple CA between the upper part of the lamp and the forest on the left side, between the lamp and the white car on the right, at the right edge of the shutter right of the balcony door, and probably elsewhere. (And the top of the lamp is blown out). --Plozessor 04:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Village_Tradition_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Village Tradition 07 --Frameofashik 17:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support (assumed support per CR rules) Good composition and good quality -- Spurzem 21:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is good, but the image lacks sharpness. --Екатерина Борисова 02:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurry.--Ermell 09:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Hm, there seems to be an amazing amount of fast movement. The sharpness of the image is actually good enough for me. In any case, good enough for my notorious A4 size criterion. --Smial 13:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do not know how fast you can move in this kind of mud, but 1/250 s looks quite sufficient, whereas there is insufficient DoF IMO. There are only hidden categories, no location, a bad file name, a bad description (which tradition is shown?) In addition, the head of the white animal appears to be in focus, the two men are out of focus. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness/focus is borderline, but per Robert there is no categorization, no proper description, no location. Due that alone the picture is completely unusable. --Plozessor 16:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 16:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

File:St_Peter_church_in_Scieurac-et-Floures_(9).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St Peter church behind the wall in Scieurac-et-Floures, Gers, France. --Tournasol7 06:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Sorry, but this is no QI of the church, half of the building is hidden by the wall --Poco a poco 08:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
     Support Ok the building is hidden by the wall, but it is not a good reason to oppose to me. The image is sharp, the perspective is good. It shows another point of view of this building. --Sebring12Hrs 11:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose I really don't mind the building being cut (this is not candidate for Valued Image), but I don't think is so sharp. --Phyrexian 14:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
     Support It's probably not possible to take a picture of this side of this church without having this wall in it, and I think the composition works. Sharp enough. --Benjism89 16:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Benjism89. --undefined 22:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Invalid vote stricken. You are not allowed to vote if you are not logged in as a Commons user. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems good enough. Composition is OK and sharpness is also OK for me. S5A-0043 08:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco.--Ermell 09:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Benjism89. --Smial 12:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good technical quality. Might as well be a photo of the wall and not the church itself (and then the compo works for me). --Plánovací kalendář 15:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support 100 % agree with Plánovací kalendář. --Plozessor 16:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition is a matter of taste, but technical quality is good --Imehling 19:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Kremmeldorf_Herz-Jesu-Kapelle_Kreuz_HRS-20250216-RM-154857.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Crucifix in the Sacred Heart Chapel in Kremmeldorf --Ermell 06:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortonate lighting. Please discuss -- Spurzem 14:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't see any issue of light here. Should we decline 90 % of the pictures taking inside churches and chapels ? --Sebring12Hrs 10:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
We should not decline 90 % of images from churches and chapels, but we should only award quality images to those that are also flawless in terms of lighting. I would not be difficult to improve the photo we discuss here. -- Spurzem 15:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support not too bad, if this is available light. Of course, the lighting should be much better if you can bring your own lights or if it's a photo studio shoot. --undefined 22:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Invalid vote by IP stricken. Please log in before voting here. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Spurzem: @Sebring12Hrs: Solved --Ermell 23:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support not too bad, if this is available light. Of course, the lighting should be much better if you can bring your own lights or if it's a photo studio shoot. --Smial 12:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Personally I would brighten it more, but it's ok as it is, actually it's really good for a picture of an object in a dark church. --Plozessor 16:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 16:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Newly_hatched_1st_instar_caterpillar_of_Euthalia_lubentina_(Cramer,_1777)_-_Gaudy_Baron_eating_empty_egg_cell_(2)_WLB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Newly hatched 1st instar caterpillar of Euthalia lubentina (Cramer, 1777) - Gaudy Baron eating empty egg cell By User:Anitava Roy --Atudu 09:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 10:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The part of the caterpillar closest to the camera looks quite blurry for the low resolution. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support (Just) over the bar for me. --Plozessor 16:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 16:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

File:2_Focha_Street_in_Bydgoszcz_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 2 Focha Street in Bydgoszcz, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 10:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Good quality, but wires.redmyname 💬 11:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please do not send anything to CR without a vote with which you disagree. Reset to "/Nomination". Please discuss here. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand, those wires are authentic, could we have more opinions ? --Sebring12Hrs 11:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Florstein 08:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The photographer couldn't remove the wires, and retouching them with great effort in the picture would have been a fake. But he could have waited for more favorable light for his photo. -- Spurzem 10:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't know why trolley lines would be a problem for a photo a street. Good quality. --Plánovací kalendář 15:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit harsh light but still a good picture. --Plozessor 16:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 16:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Grasfrosch_am_Ufer_des_Kleidersees_bei_Augsfeld_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common frog at the Kleidersee near Augsfeld --Plozessor 05:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The head is perfectly sharp, but it is blurred around. The light reflexion at the right top is disturbing and spoils the composition. --Sebring12Hrs 10:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: Thx for the review. Obviously I'm unable to fix improve the DoF, but I improved the reflections a bit. --Plozessor 19:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality imho. --Юрий Д.К. 09:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 09:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Smial 12:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Fanush_Flying_at_Bholanath_Dham,_2019_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bholanath Dham, Fanush, 2024 --Rangan Datta Wiki 08:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 08:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CAs, bad and strange light. Let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 17:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting photo, good composition, sufficient quality; for me a QI -- Spurzem 10:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition, but purple CA at the right edge of the baloon, massive green CA at the right side of the left pillars and on the left side of the right pillars. (Also a bit noisy and not too sharp.) Probably all of these problems could be addressed with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 05:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Hello Plozessor, let's ignore RAW for a moment please. The photo we're evaluating here is good; I consider it one of the better ones presented daily, especially because of its composition. I've never considered RAW before, and yet, in almost 70 years, I've managed to take usable photos sometimes. Best regards -- Spurzem 15:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Nobody is forced to convert RAW files. But this photo here has significant chromatic abberation and noise and blur. This can probably be partially remediated by modifying the JPG file, but the ideal way would be reprocessing the RAW file with better settings.
  •  Comment This is an interesting photo, but CAs should be reduced. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As I said earlier in the comments to another image, if a photo doesn't get QI status, it won't disappear from the Commons, it will just remain without a status, that's all. This one is not QI im my eyes because of CA's and blur, but I'm sure that it can be useful as an illustration in Wikipedias. So take it easier, lack of QI status is not a big deal :) -- Екатерина Борисова 02:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor.--Peulle 08:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 11:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

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