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 26 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]] 22:19, 26 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 26, 2017Edit

February 25, 2017Edit

February 24, 2017Edit

February 23, 2017Edit

February 22, 2017Edit

February 21, 2017Edit

February 20, 2017Edit

February 19, 2017Edit

February 18, 2017Edit

February 17, 2017Edit

February 16, 2017Edit

February 15, 2017Edit

February 14, 2017Edit

February 13, 2017Edit

February 10, 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 Nuévalos, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 16:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, but I saw some strong red/pink CAs on the left, that need to be removed. Also, it would be good to add some sharpness. --Halavar 14:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I wouldn call it "strong" if you keep an eye on the file size.   New version uploaded Poco a poco 17:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Large, good picture with a bit of unsharpness on near the left and right margins. A lot of smaller pictures that are slightly unsharp throughout the entire picture are routinely promoted, and I think everyone can think of plenty examples of that. -- Ikan Kekek 05:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok, good now. QI for me --Halavar 10:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Peulle 10:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Akan MHNT.ETH.2010.25.247.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Akan Gold Weight, Geometric weight. Pattern of Palm veins --Ercé 06:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Weak   Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. It looks like flash and IMO to small DoF. --XRay 08:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Clarity is acceptable to me. Let's discuss. -- Ikan Kekek 11:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan.--Peulle 13:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks oversharpened, and too much of useless white on the top. Sorry. --A.Savin 14:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --W.carter 10:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Credit River at Forks of the Credit Provincial Park, Ontario --СССР 01:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lacking sharpness, especially in the left part it is blurred, and some chromatic aberrations are there too --A.Savin 15:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I tend to agree with A.Savin on this. -- Ikan Kekek 05:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 10:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


  {{../Withdrawn|View of Riomaggiore from Via De Gasperi. --СССР 01:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)|

  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There are chromatic aberrations everywhere in the picture but especially in the edge areas. --A.Savin 15:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The motive looks very pleasant, but the chromatic abberation should be corrected. -- Liberaler Humanist 00:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Correction seems almost impossible.--Famberhorst 16:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I think I can fix the CAs - at a later date. Thanks for the input. --СССР (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Famberhorst 16:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 10:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)




  • Nomination Broken ice on Holma Millpond, Lysekil, Sweden. --W.carter 21:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Composition isn't quite there for me, unfortunately. No clear subject as most of the frame is simply a uniform sheet of ice. Dark intrusion of near bank pulls the eye in one direction and blown reflection of the sun pulls it in the other. Sorry. Juliancolton 03:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Pic is now cropped to show just the subject which is the light on the ice in a minimalistic way. Is this better? It is polite to give the nominator a chance to correct such a simple thing as a crop. ;) --W.carter 10:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Please know that I didn't mean to be impolite. I considered that a crop might have addressed my concerns, and it was indeed a nice improvement, but I still feel find the composition to not be very compelling. I'm happy to be proven wrong, as it's still very pretty and tranquil as others have noted. Juliancolton 15:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are loads of QIs without compelling compositions. If we had to decline every one of them, QI would be a much smaller category - and this one is way more interesting than quite a lot of other pictures, anyway. If you find this very pretty and tranquil and it's up to QI technical standards, do you really think it's appropriate for you to oppose a promotion? -- Ikan Kekek 05:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The image guidelines define compositional as well as technical standards to be met for QI status. If there are many QIs with poor compositions then perhaps at least some of them shouldn't be QIs at all. It's fine to disagree with my judgement. That's why we have consensual review. Just don't insist that I've been impolite or inappropriate etc etc... Juliancolton 15:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good, interesting photo. -- Ikan Kekek 05:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support for me pretty picture.--Famberhorst 16:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Subtle shades of a golden winter afternoon. Daniel Case 17:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ----Famberhorst (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 10:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Mézières, Charleville-Mézières, France --XRay 07:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 19:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry   Oppose. Sky washed out. --A.Savin 15:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but bad weather conditions. It isn't washed out, but you're right, it isn't a nice sky. --XRay 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Close call for me; the house seems OK, but the sky gives you problems. The chimney is distorted too, not sure if that can be rescued. I'd recommend reshooting on a day with better weather, and experimenting with distances to avoid the distortion.--Peulle 10:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 10:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Ras Mancha near the Biswas Bari of Cossipore. By User:DeepanjanGhosh --Sumitsurai 11:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Needs some perspective correction. --A.Savin 16:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now -A.Savin 01:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 13:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Altes Tauernhaus (2,380 metres (7,810 ft)) in the Tauern Valley near Mallnitz, High Tauern National Park, Carinthia --Uoaei1 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose sorry, but not sharp enough --PtrQs 03:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • New version available, lets discuss --Uoaei1 05:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support IMHO sharp enough for good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Moroder 15:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question -- and how do we read the QI-guidelines [1]: 'Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality).' Here it was 17 -> 9,5 MB --PtrQs (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • haahh, it's the damn pixelpeepers! --Moroder 21:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • thank you for this very useful hint. So if everybody's happy with that pic, I won't persist in any standards   --PtrQs (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I think this is a valid discussion. PtrQs quoted accurately. So since the image guidelines are actually not enforced to the letter, what is the operative standard, and should this guideline be edited accordingly? -- Ikan Kekek 07:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's an issue, yes. I usually use that rule if an image has lower resolution than this, and/or if the quality seems questionable. The typical case is an image that has not been cropped or taken with a zoom lens, but has been shot with a high res camera and has been downsampled to just above the 2MP limit.--Peulle 13:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment IMO these guidelines should not be adapted to generally accepted low standards. I feel that there are more than a few QIs that I would rank near the limit of sharpness. But especially for those, where even a downsizing does not result in an acceptable quality, we should be able to quote this guideline. --PtrQs 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not really understanding this discussion. What I see is that there are sharpness issues in the previous version of this photo at full size, and that there are still some questions about the sharpness of this version at full size. In particular, the roof is a bit questionable to me without "pixel-peeping". If there were no question of downsizing, though, I'd probably just not vote. I will   Oppose, and I'd like anyone to explain why it's fine to downsize this image. -- Ikan Kekek 03:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I miss detail on the grass. --A.Savin 14:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have seen both versions now and I don't see any compelling problems with the first version's size; the resizing seems to be done to make it appear sharper. Sharpening of the original image could work without reducing the size.--Peulle 10:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question @PtrQs, Ikan Kekek, A.Savin, Peulle: Dear opposers, I really do not understand how an image where you can read a text that is about 10 pixels high and about 2 pixels wide (see the hiking signs) could possibly be unsharp or show any lack of detail?! Regards, --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Well, it looks to me like the part of the roof facing us is a bit questionable, and A.Savin mentioned the grass. But I think the main objection is to your having downsampled. -- Ikan Kekek 21:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 03:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Modern residental house in Munich --Lucasbosch 10:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 13:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. I can´t understand the composition. Too much sky and only a part of the building? --Milseburg 20:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The composition is certainly strange, with the slanty building and the plane looking as if it's diving headlong into its side, but weird doesn't mean bad quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop doesn't fit to the description. --Palauenc05 21:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not? We see part of the facade. -- Ikan Kekek 00:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Milseburg Poco a poco 07:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Poco a poco 07:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Sat 18 Feb → Sun 26 Feb
Sun 19 Feb → Mon 27 Feb
Mon 20 Feb → Tue 28 Feb
Tue 21 Feb → Wed 01 Mar
Wed 22 Feb → Thu 02 Mar
Thu 23 Feb → Fri 03 Mar
Fri 24 Feb → Sat 04 Mar
Sat 25 Feb → Sun 05 Mar
Sun 26 Feb → Mon 06 Mar