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 exclude vector graphics (SVG) and images computer generated and constructed using a free licensed source code available in the image 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 February 19 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]] 21:10, 19 February 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

February 19, 2017Edit

February 18, 2017Edit

February 17, 2017Edit

February 16, 2017Edit

February 15, 2017Edit

February 14, 2017Edit

February 13, 2017Edit

February 12, 2017Edit

February 11, 2017Edit

February 10, 2017Edit

February 9, 2017Edit

February 7, 2017Edit

February 5, 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 Actor of Circus Ferus theatre in the show "Heart of Poland" at 29. ULICA – The International Festival of Street Theatres in Kraków --Jakubhal 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Too tight for me, Vanoot59 17:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not for me, I think the crop is fine. Let's discuss.--Peulle 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree with Vanoot59: The top crop is too tight and makes me feel like it's pushing the man down. -- Ikan Kekek 23:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Crop is good enough for Q1. It would have been different if this man would have had a lot of hair --Michielverbeek 07:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 08:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Gray heron on the roof --Ermell 11:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality --Halavar 11:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too soft. Charlesjsharp 19:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - In view of the size of the file, I agree with Charles. -- Ikan Kekek 23:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK and QI --Milseburg 08:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 08:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Modern residental house in Munich --Lucasbosch 10:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Sorry, the right wall appears distorted, the left part of the building is not vertical, and the crop is a little bit too tight in the top. --Bob Collowân 12:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bob Collowân: You're right, the perspective has to be corrected but it's a good practice to include the perspective correction as a task in the review instead of decline the image as we're talking about a fixable error. --Basotxerri 15:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Lucasbosch: Please correct the perspective. --Basotxerri 15:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bob Collowân, Basotxerri::   Done Lucasbosch 18:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I still think the upper frame is a little bit too close, however, as the perspective has now been corrected, I support it. --Bob Collowân 18:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri 21:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I   Support, too. Bob Collowân, since you support now, would you be willing to change "Discuss" to "Promotion", or do you still think we should have a discussion at Consensual Review, when it appears like there's just about no possibility of this photo being declined? -- Ikan Kekek 23:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hi Ikan Kekek, perhaps it's my fault as I put it into CR. When I saw that Bob had already given his support, maybe I should have reversed it to Promotion. --Basotxerri 09:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 08:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 09.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Mountain hiking of parking in power station Malga Mare to Lago Lungo (2553m).--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good composition, but unfortunately oversharpened --Michielverbeek 08:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 08:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Front view of Hotel Sasso, Mar del Plata, Argentina --Ezarate 23:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment There are some dust spots in the sky to remove. --Milseburg 13:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done if you see more, please sign it on the picture, thanks!! --Ezarate 21:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Not done There are more then 10 spots remaining, some with ghost lines. I marked some of them. I´m sure you find the rest on your own. They are quite obvious. --Milseburg 12:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done I don´t see anymore dust spots Ezarate 18:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   Not done Sorry, but I do. I suggest I decline and you sent it into CR to get another opinion. --Milseburg 12:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  OK I can't find anymore dust spots Ezarate 14:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Really? There are big dust spots and some small ones all over the photo. Not a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 11:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see the dust spots.--Peulle 15:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 11:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Virgen de las Cuarenta Horas, Limache, 2016-02-29.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Statue of Our Lady of Cuarenta Horas, Limache, Chile --Carlos yo 16:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Sorry, the statue is too unsharp for a QI. --Basotxerri 17:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support for me. I think it is sharp enough for QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 21:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality ! Vanoot59 17:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp.--Peulle 18:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At 6 Mpix is reasonably sharp, but not all together. --C messier 12:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 14:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Khirokitia near Larnaca 01-2017 img1.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Archaeological site of Khirokitia near Larnaca --A.Savin 01:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This kind of composition requires even sharpness throughout the image, but here only a central part of the image is unconditionally sharp; sharpness obviously drops from the centre to the corners of the photo (unsharp areas are marked); the upper right corner is too noisy, the “grains” of the noise are clearly visible on leaves. Dmitry Ivanov 19:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
  •   Support Noise is not so disturbing IMO and the sharpness is o.k. The optical performance reaches its limits at 9mm and this distance.--Ermell (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
    • To say the truth, your arguments about limits of the optics sound veeery strange. The “art of QI” is just in getting round of limits of a camera. First, do are you sure that this distance and 9 mm were the best decision for this scene?.. Well, assume it was. So, then, when you nominate your picture, you have to minimize the undesirable influence of technical limits whith processing. Let’s reason together. As of noise: you can make a mask for leaves and denoise this area without blurring of the image in whole. As of sharpness. Details on the periphery of the picture have gone never to return, but you can increase the seeming sharpness of these areas (using the masks to avoid oversharping in the centre). These are solutions which jumped in my mind just now, without any consideration. I am sure there are other, more sophisticated solutions. Use them and you, probably, get a satisfactory QI, instead this splash-dash. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC).
  •   Oppose I must admit, I'm not quite happy with the sharpness either; only the centre is sharp.--Peulle 22:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine to me Poco a poco 21:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Poco a poco 21:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Ekaterina Katnikova beim HELABA Nationscup der Damen in Oberhof 2017 --Sandro Halank 20:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Too tight top crop, IMO, cutting off part of the helmet. --Peulle 22:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. The helmet is not important. --Ermell 20:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ermell. --Basotxerri 16:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me. -- Spurzem 21:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Top crop Poco a poco 21:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good picture, but I think that is not QI (I'm not sure): Exposure time: 1/800 sec (why?), F-number (f/2.8)--Lmbuga 12:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition could be better. DoF could be better IMO--Lmbuga 12:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Too tight, Vanoot59 17:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Poco a poco 21:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Ralf Palik beim Rennrodel-Weltcup der Herren in Oberhof 2017 --Sandro Halank 20:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality: unsharp in places, unfortunate top crop. --Peulle 22:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Eyes are sharp and the face is in the middle. With an aperture of 2.8 you you cannot get more. --Ermell 20:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The whole face should be sharp, IMO. Here the nose for instance is unsharp.--Peulle 14:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This time per Peulle. The nose IMO is too unsharp for a portrait. --Basotxerri 16:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Weak Pro. Sharpness could be better but Halank obviously wanted to get an unsharp background and therefore he decided for 2.8. -- Spurzem 16:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Top crop Poco a poco 21:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor DoF (f/2.8 and, incomprehensibly for this kind of photo, 1/500 sec (0.002))--Lmbuga 12:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - A little blur in the bottom, Vanoot59 17:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jebulon 22:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Poco a poco 21:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Sat 11 Feb → Sun 19 Feb
Sun 12 Feb → Mon 20 Feb
Mon 13 Feb → Tue 21 Feb
Tue 14 Feb → Wed 22 Feb
Wed 15 Feb → Thu 23 Feb
Thu 16 Feb → Fri 24 Feb
Fri 17 Feb → Sat 25 Feb
Sat 18 Feb → Sun 26 Feb
Sun 19 Feb → Mon 27 Feb