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 • ‎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 August 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]] 01:31, 25 August 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.

August 25, 2016Edit

August 24, 2016Edit

August 23, 2016Edit

August 22, 2016Edit

August 21, 2016Edit

August 20, 2016Edit

August 19, 2016Edit

August 18, 2016Edit

August 17, 2016Edit

August 16, 2016Edit

August 15, 2016Edit

August 12, 2016Edit

August 7, 2016Edit

August 5, 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

File:PL-SK Kałków, Sanktuarium Matki Bożej Bolesnej Pani Świętokrzyskiej 2016-08-18--14-58-08-002.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Monument to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, Sanctuary in Kałków, Poland --Kroton 17:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition: tree (foreground) is disturbing--Lmbuga 20:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  SupportThe trees are part of the monument site, four of them planted in formation around the plane, no way to avoid them. --W.carter 20:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, but composition could be better, not QI IMO, sorry--Lmbuga 20:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki 21:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 06:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Parts of the plane are unsharp and overexposed --A.Savin 09:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as A.Savin. --Hubertl 09:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Also per A.Savin. --Peulle 10:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 10:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Eutin Königstraße.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Half-timber house at Königstraße - Eutin, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. --Nordenfan 16:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment do you have a image with a less tight crop? --Hubertl 17:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC) * Comment I´m afraid not. --Nordenfan 18:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  weak Pro, a third opinion is appreciated! --Hubertl 20:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop I can live with, but there is a lot of green and red CA all over the pic. Fixable though. --W.carter 21:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  weak Contra The crop is too tight, there is some red/green CA on the left side and the dust in the upper right is not fully corrected. All points should be fixable. --Dirtsc (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop, CA, jpeg artifacts. --Peulle 10:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I like the general look of the picture, but the post-processing needs improvement: fix the CA, less noise reduction to bring out the fine structural detail, fix the dust spot I have annotated in the picture. All of this can be done with a short PP session, then I will give my support. --Hendric Stattmann 20:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 20:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


  • Nomination A grizzly bear (ursus arctos horribilis) at the Zoo Sauvage de Saint-Félicien --Letartean 03:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Tiens, bon retour ! QI, btw.--Jebulon 11:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree; the subject is cropped too much and the DoF is not quite right, leaving parts of the head out of focus (see ears). Please discuss.--Peulle 07:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes out of focus (nose is in focus), unfortunate crop, greenish cast. Sorry to decline... --Hendric Stattmann 07:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Eryngium on Rhodes island.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Eryngium on Rhodes island. Greece --Ввласенко 12:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very special. I think okay.--Famberhorst 15:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please fix overcategorization (two!! redundant categories) and unidentified species first. --A.Savin 18:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done --Ввласенко 06:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Ввласенко: It´s a good practice, to {{ping|UsernameXX}} the colleagues here, if you want them to response! --Hubertl 07:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm very sorry, Hubert, but I'm afraid that I do not quite understand your message. Need I to send my answer by ping, and not to place it here? --Ввласенко (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Ввласенко:: In this case, A.Savin wanted you to change the categories. You did it yesterday. But how does Alexander knows, when you repaired it? So you have to "ping" him together with your "Done"!. That´s it. So he can prove it and change maybe his decision from contra to pro. This is what you want, isn´t it? In fact, you can {{ping}} someone from every position inside wikimedia projects. Thats the echo-project! --Hubertl 09:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not sufficiently fixed, Ввласенко. The plant is still unidentified, and instead of Category:Rhodes, you have to use Category:Plants on Rhodes, which is so far the most specific one for this topic. Please do it this way for all your uploads, and not only if I requested you on QIC to do so. Thanks --A.Savin 11:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Done --Ввласенко 14:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @A.Savin: I could not to identify the kind of the plant, for this reason I use category "Eringium". Very grateful to you for your help. --Ввласенко (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment I'm really not a specialist but it could be a Eryngium glomeratum. Perhaps someone could confirm it. --Basotxerri 20:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
        • @Basotxerri: Thank you, Basotxerri, it is quite possible that this is the Eryngium glomeratum, but there are so many sub-species of Eryngium glomeratum, I do not venture to determine. --Ввласенко 07:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
          •  Comment I understand you, these sea hollies look all very similar. --Basotxerri 17:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 15:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'll ask the specialists in our french WP, we have some botanists, working in a special "plant identification page".--Jebulon 08:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is clearly QI. I also appreciate the ongoing efforts by the author to address the various remarks. --Hendric Stattmann 20:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 10:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Wed 17 Aug → Thu 25 Aug
Thu 18 Aug → Fri 26 Aug
Fri 19 Aug → Sat 27 Aug
Sat 20 Aug → Sun 28 Aug
Sun 21 Aug → Mon 29 Aug
Mon 22 Aug → Tue 30 Aug
Tue 23 Aug → Wed 31 Aug
Wed 24 Aug → Thu 01 Sep
Thu 25 Aug → Fri 02 Sep