Open main menu

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎ไทย • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

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 excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's 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 May 26 2019 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]] 11:06, 26 May 2019 (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.
If there are terms you are unfamiliar with, please see explanations at Photography terms.

Thank you.

May 26, 2019Edit

May 25, 2019Edit

May 24, 2019Edit

May 23, 2019Edit

May 22, 2019Edit

May 21, 2019Edit

May 20, 2019Edit

May 19, 2019Edit

May 18, 2019Edit

May 17, 2019Edit

May 15, 2019Edit

May 11, 2019Edit

May 8, 2019Edit

May 6, 2019Edit

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



Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 10:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Chișinău, Moldawien, duty-free am Flugplatz --Ralf Roletschek 05:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --SH6188 12:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shake. --A.Savin 22:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree with A.Savin - in this kind of panorama, we should be able to view it at full size, and when I do, nothing is sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 02:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 10:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination The Tempio Capitolino and Palazzo Maggi-Gambara in Brescia. --Moroder 08:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Unfavorable light --Cvmontuy 23:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Moroder 05:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I do agree. It's a bit too hazy, in my opinion, but I think it's fixable. Also, please eliminate dust spots. I won't oppose now but will wait for you to make some edits. -- Ikan Kekek 07:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Hazy? Where?--Moroder 09:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Left side. Or maybe just a bit overexposed-looking. -- Ikan Kekek 04:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Is it stitched? The house on the right looks tilted ccw. It seems there are also CRs in the entrance area. I don´t see any haze. Maybe it's meant that it looks like the lens was a bit misty. --Milseburg 10:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 10:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Swans Hotel (Scott Building), Victoria, British Columbia (by Jmabel) --Another Believer 00:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, there are still stitching errors at least on the street that needs fixing first. --W.carter 12:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per W.carter, --Cvmontuy 21:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 10:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Aston Martin Vantage by Startech at Geneva International Motor Show 2019, Le Grand-Saconnex --MB-one 07:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Stoxastikos 09:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Only front wheel and one headlight are sharp, nothing else. Also disturbing background and agein unsufficiant lighting. I will never understand why all these exhibition and museum photos with creepy spotlight illumination should be quality images. Isn't "VI" enough for an award? --Smial 10:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial. The gesticulating man behind the car is really distracting, and not in a good way, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 04:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial, --Cvmontuy 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 10:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Continental Mark IV at Classic Days Berlin 2019, Kurfürstendamm, Berlin-Charlottenburg --MB-one 07:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    So shiny and chrome! But wouldn't it be even better, if you try to use a polarizer on it? The reflections on the bonnet look interesting, but on the glass they seem to a bit too distracting in my opinion. --Stoxastikos 09:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      Support - I'm not sure why this was headed toward CR without even a single vote on it, but I like the reflections on the glass, too. -- Ikan Kekek 04:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Very unfortunate lighting. I would not present such a photo as QI. -- Spurzem 10:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose Per Spurzem --Cvmontuy 17:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cvmontuy 17:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Juvenile of Columba livia domestica (pigeon) in La Virgen del Camino (municipality of Valverde de la Virgen, León, Spain).--Drow male 06:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion }
  •   Support Although I'm not super happy with the camera's post processing, it's good enough overall. --MB-one 07:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Strong posterization --George Chernilevsky 14:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm also concern about how these images were taken. The pidgeon must have been frightened by dozens of your flashes directly in its nest. --Podzemnik 23:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    * *   Comment - I like pigeons, but you're even more of a softy toward them than I am. I think pigeons are pretty unflappable in dealing with human beings and doubt some sessions with a photographer with a flash will severely scar them for life. They do have excellent eyesight, but I don't know how flash affects them, and Drow male may have unusually good rapport with pigeons and get them to relax. He was certainly able to photograph right into a pigeon nest, which is not a common occurrence. -- Ikan Kekek 04:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment - This pigeon came out of the egg under a window of the apartment where I lived in La Virgen del Camino (León, Spain). My idea was to take at least 2 photos of each day during its development while I was in the apartment. For personal reasons I had to return to live in A Coruña, and I suppose that when I return to the apartment for my things and to return the keys to the landlord within more than a month, the pigeon has already flown from the nest. I hope so, because I think the landlord does not want pigeons right under the apartment window. --Drow male 05:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Could be sharper, but sharp enough at a reasonable size, IMO. I'm not bothered by whatever posterization you're seeing - the colors of the pigeon's feathers seem believable to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 10:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)



Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cvmontuy 17:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination The fascinating and beautiful village of Kagbeni (2840m) on sea level. By User:Nrik kiran --Biplab Anand 09:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   SupportGood quality. --Manfred Kuzel 10:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice view, but I disagree about the quality. --A.Savin 16:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me, perhaps no FP. -- Spurzem 11:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Details are washed out, there is some chroma noise and blotches in the sky.--Peulle 14:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Details are washed out.--Tobias ToMar Maier 14:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit overprocessed (someone would say "weichgelutscht" but nice --Moroder 09:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others some montains has halos --Cvmontuy 17:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   ----Tobias ToMar Maier 14:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Hamrafjället. --ArildV 04:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Lacks sharpness. Sorry. --Ermell 06:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, but I disagree. Focus is deliberately on the foreground. --ArildV 15:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not very sharp.--Fischer.H 17:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not sure why the focus is on the foreground but it's OK for me. --Podzemnik 20:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Never thought about it until now, but facus on the foreground makes sense, as there's the stuff up close.--Tobias ToMar Maier 14:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support A somewhat difficult case. I would have preferred either continuous sharpness from the foreground to the background or stronger blur in the background. But that's a question of composition, imho all other QI criteria are met. --Smial 09:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support as Smial. --Ralf Roletschek 10:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unfavorable DOF --Milseburg 17:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 09:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Smial. --Aristeas 07:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 07:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Sat 18 May → Sun 26 May
Sun 19 May → Mon 27 May
Mon 20 May → Tue 28 May
Tue 21 May → Wed 29 May
Wed 22 May → Thu 30 May
Thu 23 May → Fri 31 May
Fri 24 May → Sat 01 Jun
Sat 25 May → Sun 02 Jun
Sun 26 May → Mon 03 Jun