Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

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 • ‎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 November 21 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]] 13:20, 21 November 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

November 21, 2017Edit

November 20, 2017Edit

November 19, 2017Edit

November 18, 2017Edit

November 17, 2017Edit

November 16, 2017Edit

November 15, 2017Edit

November 14, 2017Edit

November 13, 2017Edit

November 12, 2017Edit

November 11, 2017Edit

November 10, 2017Edit

November 6, 2017Edit

November 5, 2017Edit

November 1, 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 Bonn, Pützchens Markt 2017. --AKirch-Bonn 15:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 18:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharpness is ok, but it looks like falling back. It needs a perspective correction and the bottom crop is not really good, either --Poco a poco 19:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   ----Ermell 21:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Bronco the Beagle laying down --PumpkinSky 02:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Important are the eyes. And they are sharp. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disagree. Bad DoF, head of dog is almost entirely out of focus. --Lewis Hulbert 05:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  Comment More a case of him refusing to hold his head still. PumpkinSky 12:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You've gotta pay your model more to get him to sit still. :-) Sorry,   Oppose, not a QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 23:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The whole head is out of focus.--Peulle 09:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Autumn Leaves 1 NBG --PumpkinSky 00:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Great autumn colors. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Too shallow DOF. --Lewis Hulbert 05:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lewis. This is a closeup view and nothing is sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 23:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle 09:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Sentmaring park, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Although this is about the leaves and the trees, on the fence and the building you can see that it's tilted. Could you fix that, please? --Basotxerri 06:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
      Fixed Sorry, I haven't seen this. It's fixed now. Thanks for your advice. --XRay 08:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose? Schon krass überbelichtet und auch von der Farbe rein auf Auto gestellt. Hallo, das Bild ist im Nov gemacht. Man muss nicht alles auf Frühling biegen, alleine das Laub ist eine reine farbliche Lüge.. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 21:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interessant. Leider trifft nichts davon zu. Es war ein schöner Herbsttag und das Laub in dem Park leuchtete geradezu. Ein Lichteffekt, den ich in dem Park schon öfter beobachten durfte. Niemand kann schöner mit Farben malen als die Natur. Da musste ich nicht nachhelfen. Du kannst auch gerne deine Bewertung abgeben, aber bitte warte Basotxerri ab, der die ursprüngliche Bewertung gemacht hat. --XRay 06:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. I don't see a problem regarding the colours but if unsure let's see what others think in CR. Someone might be annoyed because of the relative narrow depth of field but I think it's still acceptable for this image. --Basotxerri 09:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --XRay 11:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Rådhuset (Court House) underground metro station in Kungsholmen, Stockholm. --Julian Herzog 20:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PRO !! Really groovy --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 22:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Excellent. Why is this a discussion? -- Ikan Kekek 04:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • 🤣 --Julian Herzog 07:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri 07:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A Q1+ photo, but I have seen this composition before (picture of the year 2015, 10th place)--Michielverbeek 20:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 07:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Morgan House is a Vintage British mansion converted to a boutique hotel. By User:Subhrajyoti07 --Bodhisattwa 01:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 02:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: CA, unsharp (and WTF) totally wrong colour temp. Green looks like old Fuji-Style and red is for blind peoble. Sorry, never a QI (and here no word about the boring sky) --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 21:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blown sky, CA.--Peulle 11:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 07:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination U-Bahn in Glasgow --Ralf Roletschek 01:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Nice photo, but the platform looks seriously deformed --Michielverbeek 08:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ralf, dreh´ das mal bitte etwas in die Waage. Es ist halt DX und dazu ein extremes WW. Dafür hast Du den Blick und kennst Deine HW. Die Fehlfarben (Neon) sind top, auch die Perspektive in einer Röhre. Ich mag es, da hier jemand sein Equipment kennt und mit der Optik spielt. 10fach besser als was man sonst zu sehen bekommt. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 22:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Hab mich am schwarzen Balken orientiert. --Ralf Roletschek 23:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Indeed it is looking better like this, more opinions please -Michielverbeek 08:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Some pixelpeeper would say: it's noisy, unsharp, CAaa bla bla blaa. I think it is a good photo --Moroder 12:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 07:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination The Montmajour Abbey near Arles. --Moroder 13:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Border of retouching visible in upper left corner, also quite noisy and unsharp in the upper part. --Uoaei1 12:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Uoaei1: I've interpreted your text as an opposite vote because otherwise I can't explain why this ended in CR. If you didn't oppose, please correct. --Basotxerri 07:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Fixed upper corner, resized --Moroder 14:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't like such extreme perspectives, but QI criteria are fulfilled. --Smial 02:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 09:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Cadillac Sedan de Ville --Berthold Werner 15:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 17:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Note: I do not agree. Nice recording of the car. But the sky is very white and there is an aura around the light pole on the right. Can you repair that?--Famberhorst 17:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 07:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very disturbing surroundings. This roof triangle in the background kills the composition. --Smial 02:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 09:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Pula amphitheatre, Croatia. --Poco a poco 19:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Wrong temp and minimum 1/f overexposed --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 21:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version with reduced exposure. I am still convinced that the original one was anyhow a QI, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 19:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I don´t wanna get themes with you in future, really a discuss with other peoble makes sense. In my opinion the stones on the left back side still with not enough Details. It´s not only a point of exposure (a really hard sun light) what her is often discussed at clouds (no sense), but here it´s architecture, means need dodging and more sharpness. Pic-Peoble are not imp (only good for checking c-temp. The Point of the pic is the shadow (hard cold blue) and the front focus but not the building itselves --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 21:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - OK, maybe a few stones could have more details, but overall, you really think this isn't a QI? In the current version, I think it is clearly a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 10:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan Kekek --Cvmontuy 17:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 02:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Still clipping highlights in essential areas. --Smial 01:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me.--Ermell 08:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --PumpkinSky 12:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Audi A3 SportBack 2017 Drammensfjorden (1).jpgEdit


  • Nomination Audi A3 on a hill overlooking the Drammen fjord.--Peulle 23:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Insuficient DOF, the logo in the front wheel is sharp but the one in the back is out of focus, sorry --Cvmontuy 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment That's OK, thanks for reviewing.--Peulle 11:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Limited depth of focus is OK in my view - the main subject (car) should stand out from the picture. Technically ok, although the purpose for wikipedia is unclear, given plenty of existing images of A3. --JiriMatejicek 15:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment JiriMatejicek please confirm if your are supporting or opossing for QI, regards --Cvmontuy 05:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm undecided on whether to support or oppose, but JiriMatejicek, if you think the photo is technically acceptable and also has an acceptable composition, you should support. The "purpose for Wikipedia" is irrelevant, as Commons is a repository of images that are free for anyone to use according to the terms of their license, and not an arm of Wikipedia. Moreover, the number of photos of a motif is also completely irrelevant to QIC. If this were being nominated in the scope A3 on VIC, whether there were better images of the car would be relevant. -- Ikan Kekek 06:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Depth of field is ok to me. --Cayambe 07:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing wrong with the DoF but the lighting is far from optimal, almost all the car is in the shadow. --Selbymay 09:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Totally fine QI-wise. The half-shadow makes the curves of the car more prominent in an interesting way, in direct light they would have been much less visible. Could be improved by cropping away some of the road at the bottom though. --cart-Talk 10:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Back of the car and rear wheel unsharp, unsatisfactory lighting and composition. --Smial 01:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 07:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Selbymay (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Mon 13 Nov → Tue 21 Nov
Tue 14 Nov → Wed 22 Nov
Wed 15 Nov → Thu 23 Nov
Thu 16 Nov → Fri 24 Nov
Fri 17 Nov → Sat 25 Nov
Sat 18 Nov → Sun 26 Nov
Sun 19 Nov → Mon 27 Nov
Mon 20 Nov → Tue 28 Nov
Tue 21 Nov → Wed 29 Nov