Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Quality images candidates

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎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 nominatorsEdit

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

Image page requirementsEdit
  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 requirementsEdit

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 qualityEdit

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 lightingEdit

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 nominateEdit

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 nominationsEdit

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Evaluating imagesEdit

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 reviewEdit

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 promotionEdit

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 decisionEdit

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 April 24 2018 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review processEdit

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 reviewEdit

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 rulesEdit

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]] 17:30, 24 April 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.

April 24, 2018Edit

April 23, 2018Edit

April 22, 2018Edit

April 21, 2018Edit

April 20, 2018Edit

April 19, 2018Edit

April 18, 2018Edit

April 17, 2018Edit

April 16, 2018Edit

April 15, 2018Edit

April 14, 2018Edit

April 11, 2018Edit

Consensual reviewEdit


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".

Consensual ReviewEdit



  • Nomination Vespidae and eurema andersonii (one-spot grass yellow) butterfly on a tagetes lucida (marigold), in Laos --Basile Morin 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Gzen92 13:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, failed focus stack - antenna of butterfly is doubled, as is part of the flower border --Exonie 22:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes,   Done thanks -- Basile Morin 01:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 14:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination Saint Catherine church. Pielgrzymowice, Silesian Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 10:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Oversaturated, probably (very slight) perspective overcorrection. --Smial 12:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done I agree about the saturation. I changed it now, but I don't agree about the perspective. Verticals of the church are perfect straight. Please take a look again. More opinions are also welcome. --Halavar 13:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 14:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Close wing position of Burara amara Moore, 1865 – Small Green Awlet WLB DSC 9170.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Close wing position of Burara amara Moore, 1865 – Small Green Awlet (by Sandipoutsider) --Atudu 15:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose over-processed, false background. Charlesjsharp 22:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charlesjsharp, sorry--Lmbuga 22:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no QI, revised. --Fischer.H 08:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ---Ermell 06:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Garden Lizard (Calotes) in village chotian, punjab.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Calote in village Chotian, Punjab, India -- Satpal Dandiwal 11:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 12:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Image is fine, but you should identify with genus if not species. Charlesjsharp 22:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment File name's changed. Done with "Garden Lizard (Calotes) in village chotian, punjab.jpg" --Satpal Dandiwal 03:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Charlesjsharp 09:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality --Billy69150 16:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice one and QI IMO--Lmbuga 17:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ----Billy69150 16:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Wandelingen door de laagveenmoerassen De Deelen 01.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Walks through the low moorland marshes De Deelen. Frozen draw hole.
    --Famberhorst 06:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   OpposeThis is an excerpt from this picture. I don't think it's a good idea to just re-nominate a slightly expanded copy of an existing QI. --Ermell 07:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree. Charlesjsharp 09:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Me too. Derivative works really need to be significantly altered.--Peulle 10:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality, and the composition feels significantly different to me. I disagree with you guys. -- Ikan Kekek 13:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ermell --Billy69150 16:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no QI for me. --Fischer.H 08:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   ---Billy69150 16:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination Launch preparation for a hot air balloon --Ermell 06:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Oversharpened, scarf blown. Good composition, but sorry, not QI for me. --Yerpo 07:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me --Ercé 09:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    More opinions will be helpful. --Ermell 08:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not the nain subject I know, but the man is not in focus. Charlesjsharp 09:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition doesn't look thought through.--Peulle 10:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Slight overexposure, but not really disturbing. IMO very nice composition. --Smial 12:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Why not --Billy69150 16:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Very nice composition. QI for me in spite of it's a bit oversharpened (upper half)--Lmbuga 22:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   ----Billy69150 16:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination Memorial of Red Army and Czechoslovakia soldiers who died in 1945. Jastrzębie-Zdrój, Silesian Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 11:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --GT1976 12:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Sorry, see notes. I think the image is not easily improved. Strong chromatic aberrations (head). Pour detail (head). In my opinion, too tight at top--Lmbuga 21:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done New fixed version uploaded now. Please take a look again. --Halavar 21:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Deleted notes about CAs. Much better, but the detail (head) is not good IMO to be QI, sorry. And too tight at top (composition) --Lmbuga 22:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good and detailed enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 06:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 17:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough -- DerFussi 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support--Lmbuga 21:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Still many small remains of CA (green/cyan). --Smial 12:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Inge Keller - Dorotheenstädtischer Friedhof - Mutter Erde fec.JPGEdit


  • Nomination Grave of German actress Inge Keller in Dorotheenstadt cemetery --Mutter Erde 09:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Small photo, but not too small. Stronger colours would have been an improvement. Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 07:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor proposal when taking the image. It's distorted (It needs perspective correction). Not QI IMO--Lmbuga 23:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Seems good enough to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Needs perspective correction. --Basotxerri 17:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree, a perspective correction of the base would distort the sculpture excessive and look strange. Its ok as it is. -- DerFussi 17:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distracting perspective, too low resolution for an easy-to-take image, which should have at least 4, better 6 MPix nowadays. --Smial 14:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 14:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Mon 16 Apr → Tue 24 Apr
Tue 17 Apr → Wed 25 Apr
Wed 18 Apr → Thu 26 Apr
Thu 19 Apr → Fri 27 Apr
Fri 20 Apr → Sat 28 Apr
Sat 21 Apr → Sun 29 Apr
Sun 22 Apr → Mon 30 Apr
Mon 23 Apr → Tue 01 May
Tue 24 Apr → Wed 02 May