Wikimedia Commons has a page where anyone can nominate a photograph for "Quality Image" status, and anyone with some experience can review it. It is called Quality images candidates, and over the past year it has become one of the places I spend the most time on Commons.
I review nominations from other photographers, separately from my jury roles in photo competitions. Recently, a few of my own photographs were promoted too. This post is about what that review page is, how I approach it, and what it has done to my own photography.
What a Quality Image is, and is not
A Quality Image is not "the best photograph on Commons". That is a different process, Featured Pictures. A Quality Image is a photograph that meets a clear technical and descriptive standard. The image guidelines set out the essentials:
It must be the photographer's own work, uploaded by them.
It must have a reasonable resolution.
It must be technically sound at full size: in focus where it matters, properly exposed, without distracting noise, distortion or chromatic aberration.
It must have a meaningful title and description, and proper categories.
That last point surprises newcomers. A beautiful photograph with the filename "IMG_4382" and no categories cannot become a Quality Image. The standard is about usefulness as much as craft.
How review works
Each nomination appears on the candidates page with a short note from the nominator. A reviewer opens the file at full resolution, checks it against the guidelines, and marks it as a promote or decline, with a short reason. If someone disagrees, the nomination moves to a discussion section, where several reviewers weigh in.
The comments are the heart of it. "Not sharp enough" is not a review. "The foreground is sharp but the building on the right is soft at full size, and the sky shows noise; a slightly lower ISO or some noise reduction may help" is a review. It tells the photographer exactly what to fix next time.
How I review
My routine is simple and I try to keep it consistent:
Open at 100 percent, always. Thumbnails hide almost every flaw that matters.
Check the main subject first. Is the part of the image that carries the information sharp and well exposed?
Look at the edges and the sky. Corners reveal lens softness and distortion. Skies reveal noise, banding and overprocessing.
Check verticals and horizons. Architecture leaning backwards or a tilted sea horizon is a common, fixable problem.
Read the file page. Is the title specific? Does the description say what, where and when? Are the categories correct and specific?
Write a reason a beginner can act on. Even for a promote, a short note on what works is useful.
I decline when the image does not meet the standard, and I try to say so kindly. Many nominators are new, and a harsh first review is a good way to lose a photographer.
What it did to my own photography
Reviewing other people's work is the fastest way I have found to see my own mistakes.
I check sharpness at full size before uploading. It is humbling how many of my phone photographs looked perfect on the phone and soft on a monitor.
I correct verticals and horizons before uploading architecture and landscapes.
I am more careful with processing. Over-sharpened edges and crushed shadows are easy to spot in other people's nominations, and easy to miss in your own.
I write better file pages. After reading a great many descriptions, I now write the description I would want to read as a reviewer: what the subject is, where it is, when it was taken, and why it is notable. I also add location and camera direction, using a small userscript I wrote for that purpose.
The result is that a few of my own photographs have been promoted to Quality Image status. More importantly, the rest of my uploads are better too, even the ones I never nominate.
Why it matters beyond the badge
Quality Image status is not the point in itself. The value is in the habit it builds. A photographer who has been through review a few times starts uploading files that are sharper, better described and better categorised. Those files are more likely to be found, more likely to be used in Wikipedia articles, and more likely to be reused by teachers, journalists and researchers.
It also helps me as a juror. The questions I ask on the review page, about sharpness at full size, about the file page, about usefulness, are the same questions I ask in a Wiki Loves jury. Practising them in the open, with reasons that others can read and challenge, keeps my judgement honest.
If you want to start
If you upload your own photographs to Commons, try nominating one you are proud of, and read the reviews of a few other nominations first. If you have some experience, try reviewing. Start with clear cases, explain your reasoning, and be generous with newcomers. The page runs entirely on volunteers, and it always needs more careful eyes.