Commons:QIC

↓ 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

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

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
  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
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

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution

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

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

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

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

<translate nowrap><!--T:35-->
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}</translate>

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:

<translate nowrap><!--T:38-->
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}</translate>

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

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

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

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

  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

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

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 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 April 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)

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 14 2026 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

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

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

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations


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]] 06:21, 14 April 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).


April 14, 2026

April 13, 2026

April 12, 2026

April 11, 2026

April 10, 2026

April 9, 2026

April 8, 2026

April 7, 2026

April 6, 2026

April 5, 2026

April 4, 2026

April 3, 2026

April 2, 2026

April 1, 2026

Consensual review

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:Hamnkran_inre_Hamnen_Norrköping_March_2026_02.jpg

  • Nomination Preserved port crane in Norrköping inner habour --ArildV 16:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose  Underexposed, Dust spots --Aciarium 17:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
    Dust spot removed. Taken just after sunset, not underexposed imo. --ArildV 18:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Ciudadela,_Carcasona,_Francia,_2023-01-07,_DD_198-200_HDR.jpg

  • Nomination Fortified city of Carcassonne, France --Poco a poco 09:01, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Atmospheric image, but technically compromised by motion blur. Sorry. --Radomianin 10:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
  • True. I reworked it, what do you think now? Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 10:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the rework. The motion blur is less apparent, but it appears to be compensated by strong sharpening. In addition, fine detail on the tower remains very soft - especially in the central section (approx. coordinates: x5000, y1550-y2900 px) - indicating unresolved blur rather than true detail. From a technical standpoint, this remains below QI threshold for me. Sorry. --Radomianin 18:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Spojná,_Ludgeřovice_2025-06-13_(2).jpg

  • Nomination Spojná street in Ludgeřovice, Opava District, Moravian-Silesian Region, Czechia --Plánovací kalendář 16:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Right side of image is too blurry. --Екатерина Борисова 02:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK, but geo location would be nice. -- XRay 19:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- XRay 19:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:ČD_Cargo_personnel_department_building_near_Ostrava_hlavní_nádraží_2025-01-27.jpg

  • Nomination Building of the personnel department of ČD Cargo near Ostrava hlavní nádraží railway station in Ostrava-Přívoz (Ostrava-City District, Moravian-Silesian Region, Czech Republic). --Plánovací kalendář 16:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice image, but not sharp on both sides IMO. --Екатерина Борисова 02:05, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   -- Екатерина Борисова 02:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Нижний_парк,_западный_Менажерный_фонтан_01.jpg

  • Nomination West Menagerie fountain in Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 23:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose noise downstairs --Igor123121 20:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   -- Екатерина Борисова 02:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Am_Höckersee_bei_Donnersdorf_3.jpg

  • Nomination "Höckersee" pond (natural monument) near Donnersdorf --Plozessor 03:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality (the sky looks a bit over-processed to me) --Lmbuga 03:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • IMHO a way too bright. --Tuxyso 19:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Tuxyso reset the promotion with his comment, thus sending this to discussion. --Plozessor 08:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info I reverted my edit to close this because Tuxyso's review might be considered an opposing vote, I hope that Tuxyso can clarify whether the critical review should be considered an implicit opposing vote or just a comment. Thanks! --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Semaphore_War_Memorial,_Adelaide_(DSCF4126).jpg

  • Nomination Semaphore War Memorial, Adelaide. --Pangalau 02:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • It is good. However there is something small in the sky, so it would be even better if you could edit it to make it clearer. --Oq10pass 02:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
    •  Comment This photo should not be here, Please do not send anything to CR without a prior vote with which you do disagree. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Ozjasza_Thona_Square,_Kazimierz,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

  • Nomination Ozjasza Thona Square, Kazimierz, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 03:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong CA's on the right roof (and minor CA's on the left roofs). Also the center part is a bit too dark. --Екатерина Борисова 23:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too dark.--Jebulon 23:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Екатерина Борисова: @Jebulon: ✓ Done --Igor123121 20:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Józefa_Dietla_Street._S_part._Kraków,_Poland.jpg

  • Nomination Józefa Dietla Street, S part, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 03:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blue fringes on branches, CA's on the foreground lamp and on the attics of the right building. --Екатерина Борисова 23:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Екатерина Борисова: ✓ Done --Igor123121 20:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  •  Comment OK, there're still tiny CA's on branches in the background, but overall quality is acceptable now IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:St_Servatius_church_in_Landkern_(13).jpg

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Saint Servatius church in Landkern, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany. --Tournasol7 02:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 14:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules white balance is off from my view. after correction clearly QI. --Tuxyso 19:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Weather vane is blurry and WB is not good. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Szeroka_street,_view_to_S,_Kazimierz,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   -- Екатерина Борисова 03:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Ночная_вершина_горы_Острая.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Ночной_вид_с_горы_Острая.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Destin_Gavet.jpg

  • Nomination Destin Gavet, homme politique de la Republique du Congo By Roly USD --Aboubacarkhoraa 18:31, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Score Beethoven 21:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Why is there a white line along the entire right edge? Opposing until it is fixed. --Jakubhal 04:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  CommentThere are also some dust spots present --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Lyon_2e_-_Église_Saint_François_de_Sales_-_Nef_-_Pendant_la_semaine_sainte.jpg

  • Nomination Holy Week in church --Romainbehar 14:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Aboubacarkhoraa 22:42, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Jakubhal 04:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support good for me.--Jebulon 23:48, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. Very bad smartphone quality, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 17:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kanał_dopływowy_w_Krosnowicach_(2).jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 03:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:DSC05886_Volkswagen_Golf_Variant,_Bundesheer,_Front_Right,_2023-10.jpg

  • Nomination A Volkswagen Golf 8 Variant of the Austrian Bundesheer. --Aciarium 09:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 09:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think there's too many distracting reflections here, let's discuss. --Mike Peel 18:44, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    • @Mike Peel: I have tried to reduce the presence of the reflection a bit. --Aciarium 16:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I don't think the edit has helped, I'm not sure this is recoverable - but let's see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel 20:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Administrative_border_of_Kraków-Batowice,.._Mistrzejowice._Kraków._Poland.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- Екатерина Борисова 03:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz,_Ribnitz-Damgarten_(20251224-P1074731).jpg

  • Nomination Flatbed tow truck on Mercedes-Benz Vario 818D chassis in Ribnitz-Damgarten. --MB-one 08:12, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 07:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise IMO --Aciarium 07:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Aciarium: ✓ Done denoised. Thanks for the review. --MB-one 20:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    @MB-one: Thanks, better now.  Support --Aciarium 07:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    You cannot oppose AND support the same image. Therefore, I struck your (older) opposing vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Thank you, I somehow forgot to cancel it. —Aciarium 00:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

  • Mon 06 Apr → Tue 14 Apr
  • Tue 07 Apr → Wed 15 Apr
  • Wed 08 Apr → Thu 16 Apr
  • Thu 09 Apr → Fri 17 Apr
  • Fri 10 Apr → Sat 18 Apr
  • Sat 11 Apr → Sun 19 Apr
  • Sun 12 Apr → Mon 20 Apr
  • Mon 13 Apr → Tue 21 Apr
  • Tue 14 Apr → Wed 22 Apr Category:Quality images#candidates