Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.


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.


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.


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. (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.


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.


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.

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.
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 --~~~~ | }}


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 --~~~~ | }}


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 and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Grace period and promotion[edit]

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from 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 also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 18 2018 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 can not 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


Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 22:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

August 18, 2018[edit]

August 17, 2018[edit]

August 16, 2018[edit]

August 15, 2018[edit]

August 14, 2018[edit]

August 13, 2018[edit]

August 12, 2018[edit]

August 11, 2018[edit]

August 10, 2018[edit]

August 9, 2018[edit]

August 8, 2018[edit]

August 7, 2018[edit]

August 6, 2018[edit]

August 5, 2018[edit]

August 4, 2018[edit]

August 3, 2018[edit]

Consensual review[edit]


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 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg 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".

Consensual Review[edit]


Église Saint-Nicolas de Maillezais-1.jpg

  • Nomination Église Saint Nicolas de Maillezais Vendée Pays de la Loire.- France.--Pierre André Leclercq 08:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Dust spots in the sky, copy paste artifacts in the foreground. Could you fix that? This would get better if you raise the shadows and lower the highlights. --Basotxerri 07:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version of the photo with the corrections needed, thank you for your advice.--Pierre André Leclercq 09:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The shadows are darker now than before. Basotxerri suggested the opposite. --MB-one 10:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Pierre André, my suggestion was to let the shadows brighter and the highlights a bit darker. This still hasn't been done yet. You should use the RAW file for it. If you can't do it, I suggest that you go back to the very first upload and fix the spots and the front area, the last three versions are not at QI level. By the way, you've changed the perspective, too, now the left side is leaning out, this was OK on the very first upload. --Basotxerri 16:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Basotxerri, thank you for your advice. I have no RAW file. So I came back to the first version uploaded to fix the spots and the front area. Regards,--Pierre André Leclercq 20:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've checked it again and I'm still not convinced. I'd like to hear other opinions. --Basotxerri 15:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO the shadows are too strong, it was not the right moment of the day to make this photo. Photo is also no detailed enough for me, not a Q! --Michielverbeek 06:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 10:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


Métro de Moscou - station Prospekt Mira (3).jpg

  • Nomination Prospekt Mira metro station in Moscow (Russia). --Gzen92 09:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Финитор 12:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Lack of detail, white balance incorrect. --Basotxerri 19:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose White balance produces a wrong color temperature. --SDKmac (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basotxerri.--Peulle 22:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 11:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


Bahía de Aialik, Seward, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-21, DD 48.jpg

  • Nomination Aialik Bay, Seward, Alaska, United States --Poco a poco 18:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fantastic view and motive. I think it is a VI but not a QI --GPSLeo 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version, it looks like QI now to me. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 19:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 05:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dust spot on the left needs to be removed.--Ermell 07:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    ✓ Dust spot gone, thanks, --Poco a poco 07:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO --PJDespa (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --PJDespa (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


Obernberg am Brenner - Scheune -BT- 02.jpg

  • Nomination Alpine barn near Obernberg am Brenner (Unterreinsalm). Tyrol, Austria --Basotxerri 16:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 16:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As with the other one: Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for discussion; it's a QI, sure, but isn't it a derivative version of this image? Practice here is that only one version of the same image can be a QI - is this the one you're going for, rather than the colour one?--Peulle 16:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment First of all, I haven't nominated yet the other version of the image, so why can't I nominate this one? The other thing is that some months ago, I moved some of Famberhorst's B&W images to CR for the same reason. However noone here could indicate where the rule was written down that different versions of an image couldn't be QI at the same time. So I suggest that it should be added to the rules. Meanwhile, nominating different versions seems OK to me. --Basotxerri 07:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, one thing is the written rule and the rules in practice is quite another. As I think you understand (I'm just writing it here to clarify my position on record), if a user nominates an image for QI and it passes, (s)he can then make simple alterations to the same image (b/w, simple contrast adjustments, crops etc.) and submit them all. The practice is that QIC is not open to this. As to your first point, I did notice that you did not nominate the colour version (nice catch, eh? I'm like Sherlock Holmes, I see everything. ;) ), which is why I posed the question. :) --Peulle 20:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Anyway, I understand your reasons, Peulle, and that's absolutely OK. --Basotxerri 07:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What is a derivative and what is a different development? IMO a B&W image is not a derivative if it's development is different from the coloured image. But it is possible, that the coloured photograph is QI and the B&W not and vice versa. An extracted image may be QI and the original not. IMO both can be nominated. Hopefully nobody will nominate photographs developed from the same source with only minor differences... --XRay 13:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "different development". This isn't film photography. All I need to change a colour photo into a b/w photo is to click one button.--Peulle 18:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For me it's more than one button. IMO colors could improved in another way. Did you ever changed green, red or blue of a b/w image and see the different effect? Try different other option, they are other than colour. --XRay 16:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in meinen Augen schlechte Löschung der Farbinformationen, keine Ähnlichkeit mit Schwarzweiß. --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per XRay --PJDespa (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see any rule broken. --GerifalteDelSabana 03:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Peulle 11:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Fri 10 Aug → Sat 18 Aug
Sat 11 Aug → Sun 19 Aug
Sun 12 Aug → Mon 20 Aug
Mon 13 Aug → Tue 21 Aug
Tue 14 Aug → Wed 22 Aug
Wed 15 Aug → Thu 23 Aug
Thu 16 Aug → Fri 24 Aug
Fri 17 Aug → Sat 25 Aug
Sat 18 Aug → Sun 26 Aug