Commons:Quality images candidates

Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

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 25 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]] 12:54, 25 April 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 • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

April 25, 2017Edit

April 24, 2017Edit

April 23, 2017Edit

April 22, 2017Edit

April 21, 2017Edit

April 20, 2017Edit

April 19, 2017Edit

April 18, 2017Edit

April 17, 2017Edit

April 16, 2017Edit

April 15, 2017Edit

April 13, 2017Edit

April 12, 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 Tatra chamois on Kończysty Wierch in Tatra Mountains --Jakubhal 18:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 18:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, nearly nothing is sharp, please discuss --Llez 08:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Llez. -- Ikan Kekek 06:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lacking sharpness.--Peulle 06:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 06:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Castle of Dalmayrac 03.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Castle of Dalmayrac, Rodelle, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 21:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Blurred to the right --A.Savin 09:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  New version. Tournasol7 14:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now: Without prejudice to the question of sharpness (it's not sharp enough for me at full size, but this is a big file, so I'm not sure how to judge that), a dark dust spot must be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek 06:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 06:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Château-Roussillon tower(2).jpgEdit


  • Nomination Tower of Château-Roussillon (13th ctry.), Perpignan, France. --Palauenc05 20:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Overprocessed - noise and pixelation in the sky. --A.Savin 00:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for reviewing. New version uploaded, please check again. --Palauenc05 08:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Well, apparently you have now only softened the picture. This way it's not QI for me --A.Savin 10:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment No, I haven't. But I'd like other opinions, please. --Palauenc05 11:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - A.Savin, please explain what you mean by "softened". If I look closely at full size, I can see a bit of pixellation in the sky (Palauenc05, can you fix that?), but the tower itself looks good enough to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It looks to me very much like applying a soft filter against noise, which results in less sharp detail (including detail on the tower) than previous version. A new process might help. --A.Savin 09:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment OK, one final attempt uploaded. Please look again. --Palauenc05 14:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I failed to see any notable improvement. Did you consider doing a new attempt to process from the raw data? --A.Savin 17:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Seems good enough for QI to me. The tower looks like it's leaning back slightly, but it did in all 3 versions, and I think that's just (or mainly) because of the plants at the bottom. -- Ikan Kekek 00:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 00:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination View from Stockholm City Hall, Stockholm, Sweden. --Josve05a 04:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 05:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Strong oppose. Insufficient quality. The alignment isn´t correct. And it´s full of artefacts. Especially the sky is very noisy. --Milseburg 13:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Milseburg. -- Ikan Kekek 06:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Milseburg.--Peulle 15:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 07:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Ławica train station 2 --Jacek Halicki 08:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment The sky is completely washed out. The other photos at least had some hint of cloud, not this one.--KTC 08:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done--Jacek Halicki 22:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's still completely washed out I'm afraid, so I'll decline. --KTC 18:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree, please discussion --Jacek Halicki 08:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support - the sky does look a bit grey, but looking at the trees in the distance this may be attributed to a cloudy weather effect. Given that everything else in the photo looks good, I'll go with support.--Peulle 15:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Compare with the other two images in the series. [1, 2] There were clouds, but there should also be areas of blue sky. -- KTC (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Not if the whole sky was covered with mist. Since the fog also partly clouds the trees in the far background, I guess that's the case.--Peulle 19:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 07:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Niederlausitz Senftenberg 07-2015 img2 Amtsgericht.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Senftenberg (Brandenburg): courthouse --A.Savin 10:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment The lens flare in the sky should be removed IMO--Ermell 10:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't understand the objection and hereby ask for third opinion. --A.Savin 22:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ... as I can't see any lens flare. @Ermell: Could you mark the lens flare with a note, please? This could make me change my mind and would help to fix the image if necessary. Thanks in advance! --Basotxerri 08:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Thanks Johann Jaritz for the note. --A.Savin 09:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
U r welcome A.Savin-- Johann Jaritz 09:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Johann Jaritz! I thought it was a cloud   --Basotxerri 17:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 09:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--Ermell 10:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good now. -- Ikan Kekek 06:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 06:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Mon 17 Apr → Tue 25 Apr
Tue 18 Apr → Wed 26 Apr
Wed 19 Apr → Thu 27 Apr
Thu 20 Apr → Fri 28 Apr
Fri 21 Apr → Sat 29 Apr
Sat 22 Apr → Sun 30 Apr
Sun 23 Apr → Mon 01 May
Mon 24 Apr → Tue 02 May
Tue 25 Apr → Wed 03 May