Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

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 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 25 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]] 16:52, 25 May 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

May 25, 2017Edit

May 24, 2017Edit

May 23, 2017Edit

May 22, 2017Edit

May 21, 2017Edit

May 20, 2017Edit

May 19, 2017Edit

May 17, 2017Edit

May 16, 2017Edit

May 15, 2017Edit

May 14, 2017Edit

May 12, 2017Edit

May 10, 2017Edit

May 6, 2017Edit

May 4, 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 European bee-eater (Merops apiaster) at Ichkeul national park --El Golli Mohamed 16:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. (Small file) --XRay 17:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not good enough considering the small size, IMO. The beak isn't quite sharp and the plumage looks oversharpened.--Peulle 20:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle --Milseburg 06:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle -- Ikan Kekek 07:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 07:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Rhesus macaque at Mount Popa monastery in Myanmar --Jakubhal 20:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality --Halavar 21:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not in focus. Charlesjsharp 21:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek 07:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 07:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:WerderHavel 04-2016 img05.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Werder (Havel): Market square --A.Savin 10:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Question The shadows on the left side are very black. The tree, windows and black cars are almost just blocks of black. Any chance of brightening them a little so more details can be seen? --W.carter 22:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Probably not. But I'm surprised: these elements are really not important for the photo. Btw, the histogram I've just checked and it looks okay --A.Savin 22:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment They may not exactly be important for the photo but all that darkness on one side makes the photo unbalanced. Also what we perceive as black (or white) and what the histogram shows technically are two different things. Just have a think about it please. --W.carter 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Since we don't agree on this it's better to take it to CR. Hope you don't mind. --W.carter 15:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I guess it's well balanced--Moroder 04:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for QI --Milseburg 05:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks fine to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 07:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Amazing face --Joschi71 13:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Ein Glückstreffer! Bei einem Foto, das zweifellos als Schnappschuß zu qualifizieren ist, muß dem Motiv Priorität vor der Qualität eingeräumt werden. Good quality for me.--Manfred Kuzel 15:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality imo --A.Savin 16:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture! --Arthur Crbz 20:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a very nice capture, but the technical quality is not high enough for QI since there is too much noise and the subject is not quite in focus.--Peulle 07:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Head (especially the eyes) unsharp, not good enough for QI. In an image like this, it would be better to tone down the highlights and to tone up the shadows. --Basotxerri 18:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor technical quality. Charlesjsharp 15:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles and others. -- Ikan Kekek 07:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 07:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Belaya Rock in Crimea --Anntinomy 12:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support GQ --Palauenc05 16:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CAs on the right side, al lot of birds (visible as unsharp spots, should be removed) aroud the rock --Llez 17:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Granted, I may be missing the CA, but the birds are OK in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Green cast? --A.Savin 01:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed, the WB looks akward Poco a poco 09:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
      Oppose then --A.Savin 09:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    Comparing this photo to others like File:"Біла скеля".JPG and File:Біла скеля, Крим.jpg, I see what you mean. -- Ikan Kekek 12:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Ikan Kekek 12:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Entzia - Hayas Txumarregi 02.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Beeches (Fagus sylvatica) on a rock near the summit of Txumarregi in the Entzia mountain range. Álava, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 05:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --DXR 07:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Isn't this just a derivative work of this image, and as such it should not be nominated? --Peulle 08:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Well, clearly not, given that there are no clouds, that the viewpoints are different and that they were taken on different dates... --DXR 08:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Thank you Peulle for keeping this in mind but you can check the details or the EXIF IDs, it's a different image. And a different camera, too   --Basotxerri 11:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  Support All righty then. :)--Peulle (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 09:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Sanctuaire de Rocamadour 24.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Sanctuaire de Rocamadour, Lot, France. --Tournasol7 17:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  Oppose Nice photo, but top of the tower ia not sharp enough for me, unfortunately no Q1 --Michielverbeek 05:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support More than sharp enough for me, especially with regard to the high resolution, please discuss. --Tuxyso 19:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but this looks overprocessed to me.--Peulle 07:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality! Über manche Bewertungen – seien sie positiv oder negativ – kann ich mich nur wundern. -- Spurzem 11:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Definitely a QI 4 me. --Palauenc05 12:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK. --A.Savin 01:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco a poco 09:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Sandro Halank 22:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 09:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Sea view from Tversted Plantation at Skiveren --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   OpposeToo noisy IMO. Tournasol7 17:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. A moderate level of noise is inevitable with such high DR situations. --Tuxyso 19:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much chroma noise in darker areas Poco a poco 09:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose with others --Zoppo59 04:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 07:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Jasmin Ouschan (Austrian professional pool player) at re:publica 17 --Sandro Halank 10:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose High level of chroma noise, too shallow, not a QI to me, sorry --Poco a poco 10:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 11:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality --A.Savin 01:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Poco a Poco --Cvmontuy 12:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Palauenc05 21:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Rotterdam, het Hofplein vlak voor het einde van de kampioenswedstrijd IMG 6779 2017-05-14 16.02.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Rotterdam, square (het Hofplein) just before the end of the match for championship --Michielverbeek 23:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Distracting calbes IMO, sorry --Cvmontuy 01:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think the poles are OK. They're part of the scene, and a shot of this whole crowd from this angle would be impossible without having them in the shot. Besides, I find the resulting forms interesting. -- Ikan Kekek 08:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan thanks for your comment, I try to show square Hofplein just before the celebrations were starting --Michielverbeek 10:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --C messier 19:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Manfred Kuzel 04:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I may support of the subject had been the poles but it is the square and it is definitely not the best spot to depict it, sorry. Poco a poco 09:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --]]]]

File:Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000-gebied provincie Friesland 06.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000 area of Friesland province. Heavy rain showers above the nature reserve. --Famberhorst 16:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Neutral Clouds are noisy, no enough detail, sorry --Cvmontuy 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done. New version. Thank you.--Famberhorst 17:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 07:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Clouds are well done --Michielverbeek 19:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support as sharpness ist just at the threshold Poco a poco 09:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 07:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination The casino of Challes-les-Eaux, under snow, on January 10, 2017. --Lev. Anthony 22:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Bonne qualité, selon moi. -- Ikan Kekek 04:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice scenery, but may I disagree about the quality? --A.Savin 10:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course you may. My operating assumption is that the photo was taken while it was snowing fairly heavily. If I'm wrong, there's distortion that looks like snowfall, and in that case, you are right to assert poor quality and oppose promotion. -- Ikan Kekek 12:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I understand your assumption but I fear that what you see is a combination of low light, small sensor and aggressive noise reduction.   Oppose, sorry. --Basotxerri 14:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose per A.Savin --Sandro Halank 10:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Technical quality should be better but I see an appealing composition and good colors. -- Spurzem 21:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many noise reduction artifacts.--C messier 19:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We are at QI, it IS about technical quality --Poco a poco 09:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's fairly close for me, given the bad weather conditions, but in the end I think the quality isn't quite high enough.--Peulle 11:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

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