Commons:Quality images candidates

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎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 does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

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 January 2017 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]] 18:47, 18 January 2017 (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.
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

January 18, 2017Edit

January 17, 2017Edit

January 16, 2017Edit

January 15, 2017Edit

January 14, 2017Edit

January 12, 2017Edit

January 11, 2017Edit

January 10, 2017Edit

January 9, 2017Edit

January 3, 2017Edit

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 Old tramway in Laon --Billy69150 12:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 16:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image can't get the promotion before perspective coorection. See the left side of the image, all vertical lines leans to the right. Please fix that --Halavar 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --A.Savin 15:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination No Parking Sign at a door in Bagni di Lucca, Italy --Kritzolina 10:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Beautiful photograph, good quality. --Slashme 12:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now - please fix chromatic aberrations first. --A.Savin 18:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --A.Savin 15:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Prague 07-2016 View from Powder Tower img3.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Prague: view from Powder Tower towards Old Town --A.Savin 18:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The photo in general is quite good, but please talk about the pronounced slant in the road on either side of the block in the foreground. It gives this viewer a very strange feeling. If the slants are accurate, this photo should be promoted right away. -- Ikan Kekek 13:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
      Comment I didn't quite well understand what's the problem, Maybe you mean the uw-angle distortion, then you're probably right and I cannot do much about it... --A.Savin 17:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
To clarify: The road on the left of the building slants pretty drastically down to the left, and the road on the right of the building slants pretty drastically down to the right. If the roads are in fact level or nearly level, widthwise, I find that distortion too great and distracting to want to promote this picture, but I'd be happy to open it up to consideration at CR. -- Ikan Kekek 19:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose have to agree that the slants in the roads are very distracting from the image overall and too much for me to see a QI in this but CR is always there if you disagree. EoRdE6 06:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree Tons of images with compulsively straightened verticals have been promoted here on com:qic as long as the camera looked upward. Now we have exactly the same effect, but the camera looked downward. Yes, this is ugly in my opinion, but it is not worse than many promoted church towers. --Smial 18:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my remarks above and EoRdE6. -- Ikan Kekek 21:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I absolutely agree Smial We wave all distorted towers through because imho we overuse the perspective correction in a quite bizarre and obsessive way (what I do not like at all, but its my personal opinion). So we have to accept this as QI as well and accept the correction as an artistic decisison of the photographer. -- DerFussi 12:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --DerFussi 12:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination EC 163 „Transalpin“ from Zürich to Graz passes Flaurling on the Arlbergbahn --Liberaler Humanist 16:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Very pretty, reminds me of Kabelleger's photos --A.Savin 17:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree, really pretty. But sorry for questioning. Is the engine sharp enough? And a bit noisy? -- DerFussi 21:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per DerFussi: Yes, a bit, but it's an excellent photograph, and I don't think that level of near-perfection is needed to pass. I'm not sure I'd even advise Liberaler Humanist to make any changes, although if it's possible to very slightly tweak the sharpness and noise reduction without hurting the overall picture, sure thing, and then it might pass FPC, if nominated there, too. -- Ikan Kekek 21:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 21:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Town hall in Bystrzyca Kłodzka 1 --Jacek Halicki 09:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 09:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree Top of the building is unsharp, sorry --Cvmontuy 20:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Jacek Halicki, is that improvable? I guess I think it's good enough, anyway, so I give you mild   Support, but if you could improve the top of the building, that would be better. -- Ikan Kekek 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with user Cvmontuy. Sorry Jacek, but he's got right. --Halavar 22:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination St. James Episcopal Church, a historic Episcopal church in Wilmington --EoRdE6 15:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment - Needs perspective correction. Declined pending corrections, which could change my vote. -- Ikan Kekek 16:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC) *@Ikan Kekek: How about now? --EoRdE6 03:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Nope. Still leaning back, etc. -- Ikan Kekek 00:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - As you haven't fixed the problem, I am declining the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek 20:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I attempted a fix but found it very unnatural, this photo was taken intentionally to capture this perspective. EoRdE6 05:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The problem here is not the church, but the building on the right, which is leaning heavily. Images playing with perspective of tall buildings are usually taken from closer range; here you're in between close and long range, making it difficult to do anything afterwards. Solution: reshoot. Either from further away (and correct the perspective afterwards) or closer, intentionally playing with the perspective. See the QI Guidelines (section: distortions) for more, and you can find a lot of examples of images playing with perspective here.--Peulle 17:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Those are good suggestions (I do feel it necessary to justify this angle though with the fact there was a four lane highway directly in front of me and a fence directly behind me) EoRdE6 03:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Understood, but that doesn't make the result a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 07:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Please sign your comment in order for the vote to be valid.--Peulle 13:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Ancient lighthouse in Cologne-Ehrenfeld --Superbass 20:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Main object is for me not sharep enough for Q1 and the sky is a bit noisy, sorry a weak   Oppose --Michielverbeek 06:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The spots in the sky are a result of sensor misfunction of the drone camera. It will be hard work to clone them out. The tower is sharp enough IMO.--Ermell 07:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough. --Sandro Halank 12:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a close call for me, but I end up voting per Michielverbeek.--Peulle 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • weak   Support -- really diffucult. but at the end I agree Ermell and would vote for a weak support. -- DerFussi 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 15:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Jose Rizal National Monument.jpgEdit


  • Nomination The monument of Jose Rizal in Manila, Philippines. --Adamdaley 22:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good focus to main object --Michielverbeek 23:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but before image gets promotion to QI, it needs perspective correction. --Halavar 02:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)voting changed, please see down. --Alchemist-hp 21:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Perspective correction? Why? --Adamdaley 11:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Vertical lines should be straight. Look at the left side of the image - it leans to the right. --Halavar 13:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  Comment new straightened version uploaded. @Halavar ok now? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok, it's good now. --Halavar 17:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      Comment @Halavar so plese strike you oppose ;-) --Alchemist-hp 17:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 15:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Animation of electric and magnetic dipole. Note that the resolution is intentionally in Wikipedia thumb size to minimize bandwidth requirements. --Geek3 16:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Intentional or not this fails the 2MP requirement for a quality image and is very clearly low quality. EoRdE6 01:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The rule is very clear: only .SVG files are exempt from the 2 megapixel minimum size requirement for QI.--Peulle 07:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support good animation. The rule of 2MP is nonsense for animated gifs. What we are like to see more with more then 2MP??? --Alchemist-hp 10:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Alchemist-hp: what are you going to see? Higher resolution? Less aliasing? Less pixelation? The exact same benefits you get from a higher resolution photograph? It's no different, that's a poor argument. There is a reason GIFs are specifically included in the guideline. EoRdE6 14:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Alchemist is right.--Ermell 11:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Guys, we've been over this: it doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not, we can't just decide to ignore the rules here in CR on a case by case basis. Non-.SVG images below 2MP are ineligible for nomination, that's just the way it is; this image has no business in CR.--Peulle 14:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Rules are rules. -- Ikan Kekek 16:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This image was created using a phyton script and IMHO, the important here is the source code present in the image description. It's not a photography and more size in this case is not more information --The Photographer 14:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - But the rule does not allow for exceptions. I suggest you propose a rule change. -- Ikan Kekek 17:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment In the past the 2-Mpixel-rule has never been applied for animations and/or videos. --Smial 19:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment That needs to be made explicit. -- Ikan Kekek 21:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I am not against a rule change, but as long as the rule says what it says, we need to follow it.--Peulle 23:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do not demand 2 MPixels for an animated GIF, but 220*220px is really too small. Many wikipedias have nowadays a thumbnail standard size of 250 or 300 px width. Standard VGA (640*480px resp. 480*480px for square images) should be minimum. --Smial 19:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The rule of 2MP is nonsense for animated gifs. --Ralf Roletschek 21:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 16:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Burg Questenberg.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Castle Questenberg, Germany --Vincent Eisfeld 12:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 13:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      Oppose the photo have been overexopsed --Christian Ferrer 16:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now. I agree with Christian. This is a classic view that reminds me of paintings from the Romantic era and earlier, but please tone down the highlights. -- Ikan Kekek 16:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I disagree with Ikan, if highlighs are decreased more than now, then the photo will lose its artistic touch, it will be "flat", and still will not be a QI IMO, the overexposition came at the moment to take the photo. This is not too bright, it lacks of details in the brightest areas, that's all. --Christian Ferrer 18:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment Of course I will defer to Christian's knowledge. -- Ikan Kekek 06:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me, nice composition and even lighting imo. Would be nice to have a geotag. --Moroder 12:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed. A pity, because the composition and lighting situation is really excellent. But there are lots of artifacts due to repairing the sky. --Smial 08:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial. --Alchemist-hp 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 15:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

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