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 • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎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 is 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 May 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]] 05:10, 4 May 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.

May 4, 2016Edit

May 3, 2016Edit

May 2, 2016Edit

May 1, 2016Edit

April 30, 2016Edit

April 29, 2016Edit

April 28, 2016Edit

April 27, 2016Edit

April 26, 2016Edit

April 25, 2016Edit

April 24, 2016Edit

April 21, 2016Edit

April 18, 2016Edit

April 17, 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 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg 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


16-05-03-Letisko Milana Rastislava Štefánika-RalfR-DSCF7954.jpg

  • Nomination "Slovenska Republika" Tu-154 OM-BYR --Ralf Roletschek 19:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality -- Spurzem 21:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    Not with all the dust spots --A.Savin 00:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


Agrobate roux au Parc National de l'Ichkeul (Tunisia).jpg

  • Nomination Agrobate roux (Cercotrichas galactotes) Rufous-tailed Scrub Robin (Parc National de l'Ichkeul (Tunisia)). --El Golli Mohamed 15:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Basotxerri 16:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    I disagree: Oversharpening halos. --Cccefalon 05:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


Tourterelle maillée au Parc National de l'Ichkeul.jpg

  • Nomination Tourterelle maillée (Spilopelia senegalensis) - Laughing Dove --El Golli Mohamed 12:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 14:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I fixed the not specific category (Birds). --C messier 11:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC) ✓ Done I fixed the category Birds --El Golli Mohamed 19:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    I disagree: This image is badly oversharpened. Please have a look at the boundaries between bird and background. Also jpeg artefacts and at the top right corner the use of a tool is traceable. --Cccefalon 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


Lunar Rainbow at Victoria Falls HP L2778e2.jpg

  • Nomination Lunar rainbow, Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe --Alchemist-hp 00:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Far too dark --Ermell 07:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO the darkness is OK for this kind of image. It's a good picture and QI for this situation. --XRay 08:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'll go along with that; it's almost a night shot, this. Good enough for QI. --Peulle 09:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 07:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's not like we're letting hundreds of super dark photos through. This is clearly an exceptional case for what it is. Ram-Man 16:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Could the chromatic noise in the sky be corrected ? It is my first lunar rainbow and I would like to support it...--Jebulon 16:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    I tested it, but with no better results. But feel free to try it by self. It was a night shoot at ISO 3200 and 10s exposure time with one of the best cameras ;-) Very difficult conditions. --Alchemist-hp 21:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


VC-10 Cockpit.jpg

  • Nomination flight deck of a Vickers VC-10 --Sturmjäger 20:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --KaiBorgeest 22:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: Some chromatic aberrations. --Cccefalon 05:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose User "Sturmjäger" is not a Commoner as far as I can see, thus the image is ineligible, right?--Peulle 13:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Peulle: You're wrong, anyone with an account on Commons is a Commoner. I've struck your oppose vote, please vote only on quality matters. --A.Savin 13:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question So even though there is no user page, the user is considered a Commoner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peulle (talk • contribs)
I can just delete my userpage, so I am no Commoner anymore? Nonsense! Anyone with an account on Commons is eligible, and also anyone with an account on any sister project in any language. --A.Savin 13:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too noisy for my taste. --Alchemist-hp 21:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Overall nice. Noise is only noticeable if you look for it, so it meets the appropriate threshold. Ram-Man 16:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise, and flash reflection.--Jebulon 16:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jebulon. Looks like a snapshot. --XRay 18:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --XRay 18:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


Chiesa Santa Giustina Longhena ex Venezia notte.jpg

  • Nomination Night view of the Santa Giustina church in Venice. --Moroder 08:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Perspektive völlig zerstört. --Steschke 08:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Das Bild wurde von einem erhöhten Standpunkt (ich nehme an, von der Fußgängerbrücke) gemacht. Deshalb kann ich das Perspektivenproblem nicht nachvollziehen. Ich sehe andere Probleme, aber so ist das halt mit Langzeitbelichtungen ohne AEB und dumm herumstehenden Laternen. Deshalb auch der (kleine) lens flare. --Hubertl 08:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As for Steschke. Trying to correct perspective issues both in vertical and horizontal direction to make a photo of a building compulsively rectangular leads to, sorry, funny results. -- Smial 13:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support "Völlig zerstört"? Weitweinkelaufnahmen wirken oft unrealistisch nach dem Versuch alle Linien so gerade wie möglich zu bekommen. Bei Rundungen ist nicht viel zu retten. Für dieses Motiv ist ME die Lösung sehr gut.--Ermell 07:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The lighting is the biggest thing for me; the sharp light on the left. I am not sure if that warrants an "oppose" vote though, so for now I'm on the fence. What do you other guys think? --Peulle 12:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose OK, I'm landing on oppose; the difference in lighting is just too big for me; glaring on the bottom left and dark on the top right. I don't blame the photographer, though; the conditions are difficult. --Peulle 13:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Overall it's very good. The perspective issues are noticeable, but not extreme. The lighting is trivially balanced with the Photoshop Shadow/Highlight tool. Ram-Man 16:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I tend to agree with opposers. At the end of my (balanced) thought, the blue bags are a no-go.--Jebulon 16:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp 21:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Alchemist-hp 21:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Tue 26 Apr → Wed 04 May
Wed 27 Apr → Thu 05 May
Thu 28 Apr → Fri 06 May
Fri 29 Apr → Sat 07 May
Sat 30 Apr → Sun 08 May
Sun 01 May → Mon 09 May
Mon 02 May → Tue 10 May
Tue 03 May → Wed 11 May
Wed 04 May → Thu 12 May