close
Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Shortcut
Skip to nominations
Image

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 September 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 September 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 September 12 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]] 08:54, 12 September 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).


September 12, 2026

[edit]

September 11, 2026

[edit]

September 10, 2026

[edit]

September 9, 2026

[edit]

September 8, 2026

[edit]

September 7, 2026

[edit]

September 6, 2026

[edit]

September 5, 2026

[edit]

September 4, 2026

[edit]

September 3, 2026

[edit]

September 2, 2026

[edit]

September 1, 2026

[edit]

August 30, 2026

[edit]

August 29, 2026

[edit]

August 26, 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 and author'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 Image Oppose and Image 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:2022-08-04_01_BLUENOSE_II_-_IMO_5419086_–_off_Blue_Rocks_NS_CAN.jpg

[edit]

Image

  • Nomination Grand Banks two-masted schooner off the coast of Blue Rocks in Lunenburg Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada --GRDN711 00:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Image Support Good quality. --Mr.FarFar 01:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
    Image Oppose Sorry, but the boat is not sharp enough --Jakubhal 03:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
    Image Oppose I agree – Julian Lupyan 16:29, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:01, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Le_musée_de_la_Chartreuse_-_Douai.jpg

[edit]

Image

  • Nomination Le musée de la Chartreuse - Douai --JackyM59 08:41, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Image Support Good quality. --Romzig 09:05, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
    Image Oppose The right builfing is too distorted, looks flat and unnatural. --Екатерина Борисова 02:27, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
    Image Oppose I agree – Julian Lupyan 16:29, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

File:H-9,_Naval_Base,_Swinoujscie_(P1034321).jpg

[edit]

Image

  • Nomination Military tugboat H-9 at Naval Base Świnoujście --MB-one 10:48, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Image Support Good quality. --Poconaco 13:07, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Oppose WB is off here, IMO. --Екатерина Борисова 02:35, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Hamburg_-_Rathaus_-_Fassade_03.jpg

[edit]

Image

  • Nomination Hamburg City Hall, Hamburg, Germany --Llez 05:18, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Image Support Good quality. --XRay 05:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Oppose Sorry, I disagree. The top is very blurry. --Milseburg 13:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Replaced by a new and sharper version --Llez 20:18, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Better, but downscaled. I'm still not convinced by the top. Let's here other voices. --Milseburg 12:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Oppose Even when sharpened, I think the top is still rendered "illegible" – Julian Lupyan 16:31, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   – Julian Lupyan 16:31, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Former_bishopric_in_Rodez_60.jpg

[edit]

Image

  • Nomination Former bishopric in Rodez (by Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 04:15, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Image Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 04:57, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Oppose I think the flash emphasizes the subject too much here, and there are also some highlights visible. --XRay 09:26, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Oppose per XRay – Julian Lupyan 16:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   – Julian Lupyan 16:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Vue_rapprochée_d'une_Z_24500_rénovée_en_livrée_TER_Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes_stationnant_à_la_voie_B_de_la_gare_de_Saint-Marcellin_vue_depuis_le_quai_de_la_voie_A.jpg

[edit]

Image

  • Nomination A close-up view of a refurbished SNCF Class Z 24500 in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes TER livery, stopped on platform B at Saint-Marcellin station, as seen from the platform for track A. --Remontees 10:17, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good quality, but please remove the lamp and the post on the platform --Michielverbeek 12:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
    Please remove the lamp? Which one? --Remontees 13:00, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
    The lamp at the left crop --Michielverbeek 06:08, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
    Not sure it's a good idea. If I remove the lamp, the train will be cropped (worse than keeping the lamp imho). --Remontees 13:14, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
    Image Question It is very simple to remove the lamp by Ps without cropping. I ask your permission to improve the photo. --Michielverbeek 05:53, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Comment You can just retouch the lamp, this will not harm the train. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:54, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:جبل_أضاوضا_في_تامنراست.jpg

[edit]

Image

  • Nomination Mountain Adaouda in Atakor volcanic field in Tamanrasset in Algeria --IssamBarhoumi 08:58, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Image Support Good quality. --Remontees 12:34, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Oppose Bad categorization. And I have some doubts about the quality of this image. --Екатерина Борисова 03:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
  • dear Екатерина Борисова I created a categorie "Atakor voolcanic field" and added the photo to it. for the quality just say what should I improve and I will fix it. -- IssamBarhoumi 10:38, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Comment Thanks, categorization is acceptable now. But I still think that сontre-jour prevents us from seeing the main object of this image. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Support Good quality. I think the lighting of the mountain is natural, and expresses the scene accurately. If it were to be any lighter, I feel it would disrupt the natural contrast between the areas in soft light and shadow. – Julian Lupyan (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Support I like the rays of light shining from behind the mountain. The current version is good, and the first version would also have been acceptable to me. I didn't like the second version, which is why I hadn't voted earlier. Jakubhal 03:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   – Jakubhal 03:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Hamburg-Francop_Dike.jpg

[edit]

Image

  • Nomination Hamburg-Francop, Achtern Brack, ring dike --KaiBorgeest 21:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Image Oppose I think it’s a poor composition that aims to be artistic but falls short of the minimum standard required to be considered. The branches in the top left-hand corner should be cropped out. The tree on the right should be shown in its entirety. In my view, the road in the bottom right-hand corner doesn’t make sense as it’s too narrow. The description doesn’t relate to the photo. It appears tilted. In short: on what grounds is it QI? --Lmbuga 22:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
    Ah! Vignetting. In my opinion (it happens to me too), a random photo converted to black and white to...--Lmbuga
    I disagree. In a row of tree there ARE branches from neighbour trees. Of course, one could remove them, but that would falsify the content. The street is a part of the cultural heritage monument, so it is as it is, there is no reason to discuss its size or even existence, Why does not relate the description to the photo? It is not tilt. I further cannot recognising vignetting. And as you can see in the greenish parts, it is NOT converted to b/w, as you say. --KaiBorgeest 17:34, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Oppose I realize that weather conditions were very unfortumate this day, and I would have supported this photo if the right tree wasn't so blurry. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:03, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Oppose per Lmbuga – Julian Lupyan 16:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   – Julian Lupyan 16:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Bee_Top_Red_Vein_Indian_Mallow_Flower_Ooty_Sep26_OM3_0925.jpg

[edit]

Image

  • Nomination Honey bee (top view) on Red vein Indian mallow (Callianthe picta) flower, Bandishola, Ooty --Tagooty 00:45, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Image Oppose All the serie is very noisy, but this one especially, plus blurred bee. Sorry. --Lvova 13:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
    @Lvova: Applied NR and improved exposure of the bee. Please see new version. --Tagooty 01:42, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
    It is very possible, that I have problems with cache, so cannot see the difference. I hope that someone else will take a look. Lvova 21:33, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
    Image Oppose I see the difference between two versions, but the image is still noisy IMO. Sorry. Екатерина Борисова 03:11, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:11, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Magdeburg,_Halberstädter_Straße_92.jpg

[edit]

Image

  • Nomination Magdeburg, Halberstädter Straße 92 --Lvova 11:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Image Oppose Sorry, disturbing car. I can accept the parked car, but why not wait until the van had passed? --ArildV 19:04, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
    Because it is parked in the second line, and I didn't want to put a camp there. --Lvova 20:43, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Oppose The car in the foreground has better sharpness than the main subject, wrong focus. Also rather low resolution for a static, easy to take image. --Smial 14:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
    I can understand the idea about the car, but the idea that this building is easy to photograph, so the resolution should be higher, is just so funny. Please never use arguments like this. Lvova 21:38, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Image Comment The wording is taken from the list of requirements for high-quality images: For "easy to take" images, reviewers may choose to demand more if the image would benefit from it.. Personally, I don't consider a photo of a static building facade in bright sunshine to be a particularly technically demanding subject that would require making major compromises regarding image resolution. Personally, I don't consider a photo of a static building facade in bright sunshine to be a particularly technically demanding subject that would require major compromises regarding image resolution. My phones have sensors well below 50 megapixels and—sensibly—output 12-megapixel JPEGs by default. That’s all these devices are really capable of delivering anyway; they need those high pixel counts primarily to use algorithms to patch over—with varying degrees of success—the inherent weaknesses of their tiny sensors and optics. --Smial 11:19, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
This photo is made in full resolution with cropping (and pixel binning), because I strongly prefer to make a photo without perspective correction, and straight lines require empty space around the main object. Without it, perspective correction steals the sharpness. Ok, it is not ideal, but by some reason it is only the 2nd photo of a building in a big city, and the previous attempt by another user was much worse - it says something about easiness. You pretend to have technical literacy while describing unrelated processes. Simple 'I dislike the car' is a normal feedback, 'phones have 50 megapixels' is not something, that is related to the photoprocess even for the big cameras. Lvova 17:23, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Oppose per Smial --Sandro Halank 18:16, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Oppose per others, disturbing car and focus. --Plozessor 03:23, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:23, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Porto_Covo_August_2026-1.jpg

[edit]

Image

  • Nomination Breaking waves at the beach of Porto Covo, Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar 15:43, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Image Support Good quality. --Lvova 13:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Oppose Sorry, horizon is tilted and roks too dark IMO. The rendering of white tones is very good IMO --Lmbuga 16:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Fixed, thank you. -- Alvesgaspar 18:11, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Support Good quality --Lmbuga 11:24, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Image Support good quality --Sandro Halank 08:30, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 08:30, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 04 Sep → Sat 12 Sep
  • Sat 05 Sep → Sun 13 Sep
  • Sun 06 Sep → Mon 14 Sep
  • Mon 07 Sep → Tue 15 Sep
  • Tue 08 Sep → Wed 16 Sep
  • Wed 09 Sep → Thu 17 Sep
  • Thu 10 Sep → Fri 18 Sep
  • Fri 11 Sep → Sat 19 Sep
  • Sat 12 Sep → Sun 20 Sep