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 September 2016 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]] 10:34, 28 September 2016 (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.

September 28, 2016Edit

September 27, 2016Edit

September 26, 2016Edit

September 25, 2016Edit

September 24, 2016Edit

September 23, 2016Edit

September 22, 2016Edit

September 21, 2016Edit

September 20, 2016Edit

September 19, 2016Edit

September 18, 2016Edit

September 17, 2016Edit

September 14, 2016Edit

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 Tilts pār Ventu, Kuldīga, Kalna iela. By User:Laima Gutmane --Papuass 18:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 20:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose needs a specific category! Needs reprocessing (oversaturation, perspective distortion) --Hubertl 21:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for Hubertl. Also some CA. Also visible noise probably due to oversaturation. --Smial 09:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Nomination Coat of arms above the entrance to the rectory in Prölsdorf in Steigerwald --Ermell 13:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Aeou 13:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Temporary. Identifiable, then to be identified before promotion. Thanks--Jebulon 16:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Identified by me.--Jebulon 08:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Done Thanks for the review--Ermell 21:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment - I edited your English-language description. If you put "Wappen des Hochstifts Würzburg" into Google Translate, you get "Coat the bishopric Würzburg", but that phrase makes no sense in English. My version is "Coat of arms of the bishopric of Würzburg above the entrance to the presbytery in Prölsdorf in Steigerwald". Is this accurate? I'll  Support, because there's certainly no problem with the photograph being a QI, but if I got any of the meaning of the description wrong, please edit. -- Ikan Kekek 07:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment There is no "CoA of the Bishopric of Würzburg". Every bishop has his own CoA, even today. There are some clues in the design, I'll search. Please don't promote before. CoA must be identified, like flowers, cars or animals. Thanks.--Jebulon 08:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Gefunden ! The question is : who was bishop of Würzburg in 1705 ? It was a "Fürstbischof" (visible because of the red hat), find the list in , and make an attempt in our friend Google, and miracle (normal, it is a catholic bihop), an article in the german wp, with in addition another picture of the same CoA. Easy. Easier than to find a taxon of a plant, IMO. Just learn how to search. But we are encyclopaedists, aren't we ?--Jebulon 08:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Good work, Jebulon! I had no idea each bishop had his own coat of arms. -- Ikan Kekek 08:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
          • It is a bit special for Germany, as some bishops were also "princes", and independant sovereigns of their bishopric. This means they were electors of the Emperor of the Holy German Roman Empire. You can see this with the hat (a coronet) "in crest". Nowadays, bishops have a green round hat with some green tassels like this. I find heraldry fascinating: it tells many stories, and it looks like "ancient comics". In the old days in Europe, everybody knew how to "read" and describe CoA. Please have a look to the notes, and to the new categories, already existing (I did not create any new category. Of course, this is not necessary for QI: only the name of the bearer). he following step is to know what is this kind of star (a spur ?), why this family had this objet in CoA, or why the CoA of Franken are so: it means something. Just be curious ! We have here specialists of heraldry, and even of ecclesiastic heraldry. I'm not such a specialist, but I may help, if needed. Thanks and sorry for too long comment.--Jebulon 09:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Nomination Highway A23, seen from Monte Laa, Absberg tunnel, Vienna --Hubertl 21:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise reduction need. --Bijay chaurasia 18:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Done, thanks for the review, Bijay chaurasia, please have another look. --Hubertl 06:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Much better. Now a solid QI. -- Ikan Kekek 07:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Nomination French Cathedral, Berlin, Germany --Poco a poco 05:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 06:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The strange striations of differently colored light in the sky need to be explained. The sky is also pretty noisy. -- Ikan Kekek 09:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 06:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:High-speed train at platform in Milano Stazione Centrale.jpgEdit

  • Nomination ETR 500 Italian high-speed train at Milano Centrale --Daniel Case 17:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Visible CA at the ceiling of the train station. Try to reduce highlights as well. --ElBute 16:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just to let you know I am working on this. Daniel Case 02:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 Done OK, this is what I could do. Daniel Case 22:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I'm afraid the overexposition at the end of the station is not recoverable. However, this is unavoidable and not the object of interest in the photo. In any case, the CA at the ceiling are still very noticeable. It's easy to fix that. --ElBute 10:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
yeah, efforts to fix the other end usually made the CA worse, so I had to strike a balance; if we just focus on that maybe it will work. Daniel Case 16:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I did it for you. If you don't agree, please revert. Good quality now. --ElBute 08:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice work but not QI for me.--Ermell 07:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Weak support; not perfect but good enough for QI, methinks. Seen worse been promoted before.--Peulle 22:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I'm sorry, but the background is just not good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Background still looks overexposed; I know this kind of photos are not really easy, but like this it is not a Q1photo --Michielverbeek 07:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 22:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Nomination Monument to Empress Elisabeth of Austria (Sisi), in the Volksgarten close to the Hofburg imperial palace in Vienna. --Martin Falbisoner 12:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment please reprocess it if possible, its badly overexposed. --Hubertl 20:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {{o}}, I´m sorry, but obviously, this scenery is, because of the Burghtheater in the background, not captureable at this daytime without using HDR. I send it to CR for additional opinions. --Hubertl 14:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment fair enough! I'll give it another try - I've redone the picture and the current version is imo much better than my first update. Please have another look, @Hubertl et al. Thanks --Martin Falbisoner 15:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Changed to  Support with the last result. BTW, it´s a great motif, this Volksgarten, Martin. I spent days there, because it´s just a short distance from were I live. And I learned a lot, how to manage those kind of motifs. --Hubertl 06:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Much improved from the first version and quite good. -- Ikan Kekek 09:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Nomination Jewish Cemetery in Lüdinghausen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Good focus to main object, but sky is overexposed and spoil the photo. --Michielverbeek 06:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Fixed I'd tried to fix this. Would you please so kind and check the image again? Thank you. --XRay 05:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed, it is looking much better and I don't see any reason for declining --Michielverbeek 05:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 06:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Nomination Cracow Dance Theatre in the show "Estra & Andro" at 29. ULICA – The International Festival of Street Theatres in Kraków --Jakubhal 21:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Nice action shot sharp and all, but all the cut things on the right side as opposed to the extra space on the left really spoil the picture. I doubt very much that this is salvageble since any cropping would cut off other things. Pity. --W.carter 08:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, don't see any problem with the composition --Moroder 18:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose After thinking about it for a while, I'm coming down on the side of W.carter with a weak oppose vote. The shot is difficult given the movement, but the dancer on the right is cut tightly as well as being out of focus. It's a shame given the quality of the rest of it, so I can only echo the first reviewer: pity.--Peulle 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Face of the main person in the center of the image out of focus. Sorry, I like the composition very much, colors and lighting are good and the action is really great captured. But the point of sharpness is somewhat random. Pity. --Smial 09:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Ps: Such scenes sometimes demand surprisingly high ISO settings to get short exposure times.
  • Mild  Support - You folks are really tough customers on this one! Looking at this not at full size but a full-page size on my monitor, it's a very good composition that really captures the action and sense of motion well. I, too, wish the blonde dancer weren't cropped at the right, but I think this picture captures the essence of the dance quite well enough to merit being featured. -- Ikan Kekek 08:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, you are the one who started the "Are QIC standards high enough?" thread on the QIC talk page... ;-) I think that the same comments that are made here, would pop up again if it was ever nominated as an FPC. cart-Talk 08:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Yes, I did, but I seem to have discovered that the answer is that the standards on quality are lower here. I would not vote to feature this picture. -- Ikan Kekek 08:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Tue 20 Sep → Wed 28 Sep
Wed 21 Sep → Thu 29 Sep
Thu 22 Sep → Fri 30 Sep
Fri 23 Sep → Sat 01 Oct
Sat 24 Sep → Sun 02 Oct
Sun 25 Sep → Mon 03 Oct
Mon 26 Sep → Tue 04 Oct
Tue 27 Sep → Wed 05 Oct
Wed 28 Sep → Thu 06 Oct