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 October 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]] 16:47, 22 October 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.

October 22, 2016Edit

October 21, 2016Edit

October 20, 2016Edit

October 19, 2016Edit

October 18, 2016Edit

October 17, 2016Edit

October 16, 2016Edit

October 15, 2016Edit

October 14, 2016Edit

October 13, 2016Edit

October 12, 2016Edit

October 11, 2016Edit

October 10, 2016Edit

October 9, 2016Edit

October 8, 2016Edit

October 5, 2016Edit

October 3, 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 Petrovsky Stadium, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Godot13 03:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not sharp enough --Michielverbeek 05:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
      Support OK for QI. --A.Savin 12:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
      Support --SKas 10:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
      Support per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek 11:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Poti Catedral.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Poti Catedral -- Beqabai 17:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Perspective not perfect but good enough for a Q1photo. Btw - I would remove the person at the left because she does not make the image better --Michielverbeek 17:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, perspective distortion is improvable. chromatic aberrations are improvables (see notes). 1/1,000 sec and f/4!!: The building is not running. Clear random picture IMO--Lmbuga 17:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CA, perspective, details blurred by noise reduction. @Lmbuga: f/4 and 1/1000s is ok for such a camera with very small sensor, because stopping down to smaller apertures (f/5.6, f/8 ...) would increase diffraction and blur rapidly. Standard problem with all small sensor cameras and smart phones... --Smial 09:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 21:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Tsughrughasheni church.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Tsughrughasheni church -- Beqabai 17:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Sorry, 1/640 and f/3.2--Lmbuga 18:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. I think we should rate the picture and not the exif data and this photograph is QI for me --Ermell 18:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem:   Neutral, but random picture. Clear not QI IMO. I'm not willing to discuss, but "discuss" is a good option--Lmbuga 19:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question What do you mean by "random picture"? By the way, I may abstain from voting on this. The picture of the church seems OK to me, but I'm inordinately bothered by the unsharp area of trees in the middle of the foreground. I'm not sure that's a sufficient reason to oppose, though. -- Ikan Kekek 05:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry Ikan, poor English. Good composition, but taked without addressing the camera settings--Lmbuga 14:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC) See note, please--Lmbuga 14:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry Beqabai, It's not a random picture. --Lmbuga 14:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Pretty difficult for me to decide who is supporting and who is declining it. Please be more accurate! --Hubertl 21:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 21:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Purtio Bridge.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Purtio Bridge -- Beqabai 17:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Ermell 18:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, poor detail. Overexpossed areas. Composition is not good IMO: Too tight at right--Lmbuga 19:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lmbuga. The right side is quite unsharp, too. -- Ikan Kekek 05:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. I think that it is a good composition but the image is too bright. -- Spurzem 17:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 21:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Perpignan Maillol La Pensée (1).jpgEdit


  • Nomination "La Pensée" or "La Méditerranéenne", bronze statue (1905) by Aristide Maillol in Perpignan. --Palauenc05 08:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree Very unpleasant lighting with harsh shadows and lots of ugly reflections. --Smial 11:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support No featured picture of course but QI for me -- Spurzem 18:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Spurzem. -- Ikan Kekek 05:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Smial. And EXIF data missing. --XRay 06:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 06:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Spider 9216.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Cheiracanthium, Eutichuridae --Vengolis 01:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 01:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Too glary. -- Ikan Kekek 09:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 21:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Akan MHNT.ETH.2010.25.063.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Akan Gold Weight, Geometric weight. Four pyramids forming a polygon --Ercé 06:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment I'm doubtful about the purple shadows. Did the shadows really look purple? -- Ikan Kekek 07:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Done --Ercé 19:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment I'm not satisfied. At least on my browser, many of the shadows still have a clear purple tinge. -- Ikan Kekek 20:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
        •   Comment sorry, no red in the shadows on my screen ! --Ercé 15:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Can I have another person's opinion, please? I guess this needs to go to Consensual Review. -- Ikan Kekek 07:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see much purple here; I have checked on two different screens. The only problem for me is a slight lack of sharpness on the lower left. Still a QI, IMO.--Peulle 15:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Who are you? Please sign. If a second person confirms a lack of purple and is OK with the shadows, I'll drop my opposition-for-the-sake-of-discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 11:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, was sure I signed this time; it's weird that these seem to keep disappearing.--Peulle 15:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 06:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look, guys. I withdraw my objection. -- Ikan Kekek 09:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 06:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Copper pots in Chrystiegården, a merchant's house built 1761 i Brevik, Telemark, later moved to the Norwegian Museum of Cultural History in Oslo.--Peulle 08:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support A bit dark in some places, but it's a difficult shot. Good quality. --W.carter 16:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, partly too dark and one kettle (bottom left) is unsharp. --Palauenc05 10:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Palauenc05. -- Ikan Kekek 07:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as others --Hubertl 09:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is a difficult shot but this does it not make QI. -- Spurzem 21:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Vakabulli Beach, Riga, Latvia --Ralf Roletschek 08:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose DoF too low. Important parts not in focus --A.Savin 02:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin --Uoaei1 05:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - I definitely don't favor this much blur, but I think it's a valid artistic choice, and I don't view anything that's blurred as truly essential to the scene Ralf wants to depict. -- Ikan Kekek 07:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A.Savin. --Peulle 21:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A.Savin --Michielverbeek 05:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan Kekek --Smial 10:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support usually, A.Savins decisions are very accurate, in this case I decide against. --Hubertl 19:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose look like focus point is too close. --PetarM 09:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per other users--Lmbuga 14:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   ----PetarM 08:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Fri 14 Oct → Sat 22 Oct
Sat 15 Oct → Sun 23 Oct
Sun 16 Oct → Mon 24 Oct
Mon 17 Oct → Tue 25 Oct
Tue 18 Oct → Wed 26 Oct
Wed 19 Oct → Thu 27 Oct
Thu 20 Oct → Fri 28 Oct
Fri 21 Oct → Sat 29 Oct
Sat 22 Oct → Sun 30 Oct