Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

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 September 20 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]] 23:57, 20 September 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

September 20, 2017Edit

September 19, 2017Edit

September 18, 2017Edit

September 17, 2017Edit

September 16, 2017Edit

September 15, 2017Edit

September 14, 2017Edit

September 13, 2017Edit

September 12, 2017Edit

September 11, 2017Edit

September 10, 2017Edit

September 09, 2017Edit

September 08, 2017Edit

September 07, 2017Edit

September 06, 2017Edit

September 05, 2017Edit

September 03, 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 The Puez-Geisler Nature Park in Val Gardena in the Dolomites - South Tyrol --Moroder 06:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   CommentThe focus seems to be too far in the foreground. The mountains in the middle are not as sharp as they should be.--Ermell 12:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for the comment, what do you want me to do?--Moroder 14:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe you could try sharpen it a bit. The motive is gorgeous.--Ermell 16:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I tried sharpening it but didn't like it. IMO it's sharp enough. If you like you could decline it and I'll move it to CR? I don't want to resize it either. Cheers --Moroder 16:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too unsharp IMO.Sorry. --Ermell 20:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Moroder 04:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe the lens is just not good enough for such a high-resolution camera? Or maybe image is affected by diffraction because of small aperture used on such small pixels? Photo is nice and looks good on small previews, but blurry on full size view. 22:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --XRay 08:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Maybach G 650 Landaulet Ersatzrad IMG 0755.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Wheel of the Mercedes-Maybach G 650 Landaulet at IAA 2017 --Alexander-93 14:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good composition, perhaps a bit over sharpened but QI for me -- Spurzem 19:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not for me; the centre is out of focus.--Peulle 20:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Main subject is not in focus. 19:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp, strong CAs on the black rubber --PtrQs 20:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp/Main subject not in focus. --Sandro Halank 22:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 22:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Bugatti Chiron 0-400-0 tire IMG 0726.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Wheel of the Bugatti Chiron at IAA 2017 --Alexander-93 14:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough, I'm afraid. --Peulle 15:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive image of this wheel and sharp enough for QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image is not sharp, may be not in focus. 19:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp, strong (sorry, mixed it up with the Maybach wheel) CAs on the black rubber --PtrQs 20:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp. --Sandro Halank 22:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 22:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Billa in Graz --Ralf Roletschek 12:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the pole in the very middle destroys any composition and the darkening of the sky is too abvious and brutally executed. --PtrQs 18:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment So I'm the only one who thinks the top of the building being dimmed by the sloppy dimming of the sky and who feels that the top of the pole is conspicuously darker than the rest of it? And ain't that what makes the technical 'Quality'? --PtrQs 20:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't agree. Composition shows a supermarket in a modern environment so IMO the pole does not destroy anything. Sky is also well done --Michielverbeek 20:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Perfectly acceptable to me, too. And what's wrong with portraying the sky as it was? This isn't FPC, where the type of weather is judged for "wow" or the lack thereof; this is QIC, where we simply judge the quality of the photograph. In the context of QIC, any weather is just as good as any other, if the picture is well taken. -- Ikan Kekek 21:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Slight perspective correction may be needed for the right part of image 05:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit noisy but still o.k.--Ermell 07:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 15:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Handset of a switch in the Speicherstadt (in the background: locomotive “KÖF LG II 1944”), Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 02:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Blown out sky, needs CR 02:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Doesn't seem objectionably bright to me, and that's just the bokeh background, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek 08:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Focus to the foreground and this part is sharp enough --Michielverbeek 05:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The problem was in the overexposed sky, not in sharpness 05:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --XRay 08:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Butadon 002.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Typical example of Butadon in Japan.--Ocdp 09:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Crop looks too tight. It would have been great if even the side dishes were included in the frame. --Shishir 11:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      CommentSide dishes is NOT components of Butadon.though, should it be included? --Ocdp 22:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      Comment True, but the cropped side dishes make the image distracting. The lighting here is also not very attractive. The image is also out of focus at the upper edge of the Butadon. This should not be the case given that it is a studio photo. But still I would like to know others opinions. --Shishir 4:45, 16 September 2017
  •   Oppose per Shishir. The cutoff of the side dishes is distracting - you could simply move them out of the field of view for the camera if you don't want to include them. I also agree with Shishir's criticism of the photography of the butadon, specifically. -- Ikan Kekek 08:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose In or out, not half-way. Do or do not, there is no try.--Peulle 20:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --XRay 16:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:WAP7 Rayalseema express 03092017.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Rayalseema express being hauled by WAP7 near Lingampally--Nikhil B 02:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO DoF too small, focus problems. --XRay 04:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    @XRay can you please tell me where was the focus missing? IMHO, entire train is in focus. Thanks for the review. --Nikhil B 05:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      Comment IMO the whole train is out of focus. The front isn't sharp auf with f/5.6 the DoF is too small. I've seen the problems with a lot of photographs. May be there is a problem with your lens. But if you think th photograph is OK, please feel free to set it to "discuss". --XRay 10:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC). Ok thanks --Nikhil B 02:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
      Oppose per XRay. Also seems tilted down to the right. -- Ikan Kekek 20:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  Comment I wonder why railroad-related pictures taken by that user look somewhat too smartphony for a real DSLR... Are they cropped too tightly or that problem is caused by a kit lens? It really doesn't look like ISO 200 to me... 02:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC) I don't use bigger lens for taking railroad pictures because they are too noisy and unsharp. I use smaller lens (18-55mm standard kit lens) for rail photography, which means most of my rail photos are cropped heavily. Thanks --Nikhil B 08:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me. I can not see that anything tilts down to the right. -- Spurzem 15:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --PumpkinSky 01:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC))

File:Tachina fly 7954.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Tachinidae --Vengolis 02:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not shar enough for a QI, especially near the head. Also the background seems very much distracting in my opinion. Deepugn 09:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support looks fine to me.--Nikhil B 04:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Deepugn. Good photo, but not quite a QI, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 20:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, main object is over all not sharp enough and the background is quite noisy. --MB-one 21:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for me Bijay chaurasia 08:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek 20:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Kormoran-Insel --Ralf Roletschek 21:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. --Kong of Lasers 23:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 22:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blurred or out of focus. --Nino Verde 09:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing sharp, IMO.--Jebulon 09:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me. This time it seems as we had a decline wave. -- Spurzem 10:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support seems good to me -- Bijay chaurasia 08:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Centraal Apotheek 1635.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Centraal Apotheek, Leeuwarden. --C messier 08:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Not all picture is sharp --Cvmontuy 11:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree (it isn't IMHO possible to be partially out of focus, probably it was caused by perspective correction). --C messier 19:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness is ok, I think and the overall picture looks fine to me. --Milseburg 13:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support fine indeed.--Jebulon 01:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Sharpness is solid. -- Ikan Kekek 20:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --PetarM 12:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --XRay 08:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Wind turbines on the island of Fehmarn, Germany --Superbass 21:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment It is a bit blurry. --Kong of Lasers 23:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It is good from my point of view. --Nino Verde 05:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. The unsharp brushwood in the foreground spoils it. --Milseburg 21:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to   Support. There's room for atmospheric pics at QIC, isn't there? -- Ikan Kekek 23:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose per Milseburg.--Peulle 06:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jebulon 01:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Great atmospheric picture (except the plants in the foreground), maybe even FP level for me (except the plants in the foreground) 02:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Other way around --Mile (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good to me. --Sandro Halank 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Tue 12 Sep → Wed 20 Sep
Wed 13 Sep → Thu 21 Sep
Thu 14 Sep → Fri 22 Sep
Fri 15 Sep → Sat 23 Sep
Sat 16 Sep → Sun 24 Sep
Sun 17 Sep → Mon 25 Sep
Mon 18 Sep → Tue 26 Sep
Tue 19 Sep → Wed 27 Sep
Wed 20 Sep → Thu 28 Sep