Open main menu

Commons:Quality images candidates

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎español • ‎français • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎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 September 25 2018 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]] 22:28, 25 September 2018 (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.

September 25, 2018Edit

September 24, 2018Edit

September 23, 2018Edit

September 22, 2018Edit

September 21, 2018Edit

September 20, 2018Edit

September 19, 2018Edit

September 18, 2018Edit

September 17, 2018Edit

September 16, 2018Edit

September 15, 2018Edit

September 14, 2018Edit

September 13, 2018Edit

September 12, 2018Edit

September 10, 2018Edit

September 9, 2018Edit

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 “The Impossible Concert” (Stenzel & Kivits) as part of the Dülmen Summer at Buldern Castle, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Unsharp and noisy. Sorry. --Ermell 06:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this image though it is a bit noisy. Please discuss -- Spurzem 16:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I like it, too, but I agree entirely with Ermell. -- Ikan Kekek 06:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support, corner sharpness could be better. Noise is acceptable regarding the lighting situation and the full resolution. The image is printable to A4 or even bigger in good quality. You can't get all three in one image: full resolution, high ISO, and low noise. --Smial 10:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info I'll try to improve sharpness and noise reduction as soon as possible. --XRay 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ermell, Ikan Kekek: I just reduced noise and tried to sharpen the photograph. IMO it's better, but do you think it's good enough? --XRay 16:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 07:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination Vihorlat --Milan Bališin 18:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --ArildV 18:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: the perspective must be corrected. --Basotxerri 18:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Help me with that? --Milan Bališin 19:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I really can't find relation points (or lines) to do a perspective correction. QI for me, even through the woods in the distance are mushy with less details. --Carschten 01:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  Comment The column is leaning to the right while absolutely all trees on the left are leaning out. (The trees bother me less than the column, though). --Basotxerri 15:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 17:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination The island of Kassos in the morning. View from the Agios Nikolaos Beach. Karpathos, Greece --Ввласенко 11:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, but the photo lacks a focus of interest. Is it about the waves at the beach or - as the title indicates - about the island in the distance? The island itself is too hazy for a quality image. --Zinnmann 13:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. Nice beach, I'd like to be there. --Yann 15:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - A landscape doesn't have to have only one interesting thing to see; the composition is the totality of what's in the picture frame, and this one is very good. The execution is by no means perfect, as the foreground has quite a noticeable grain. However, the overall quality is plenty good enough for QI, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 21:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan but I can also understand Zinnmann's point of view. --Basotxerri 06:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Basotxerri -- DerFussi 08:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Basotxerri 15:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination Wall, Montón, Zaragoza, Spain. --Poco a poco 06:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose CA near edges (particularly the roofline at right) and the sky is noisy --Daniel Case 19:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   New version, is CA a reason for a straight decline? Poco a poco 08:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Straight declines avoid kilometers of discussions in the candidates gallery above. --Smial 12:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Yann 13:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me, too, but I personally would remove the motion-blurred bird on the right. --Basotxerri 06:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The bird is gone Poco a poco 19:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Quality is acceptable (marginally so in places) at 300% of my laptop screen. I take it, the left side of the building on the upper left does in fact lean a bit to the left going up? -- Ikan Kekek 07:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - ok to me -- DerFussi 19:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 19:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination Wayside cross of Saint Vicente, Fuentes de Jiloca, Zaragoza, Spain. --Poco a poco 06:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Noisy --Daniel Case 19:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   New version Poco a poco 08:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Yann 13:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Massively downsized to hide motion blur, but still not really sharp. --Smial 12:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Smial is right with the motion blur, seems not correctable to me. --Carschten 17:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Downsizing to improve the apparent quality is a violation of the rules. I'm surprised you did that. -- Ikan Kekek 07:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - per the previous speakers -- DerFussi 19:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --DerFussi 19:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination Ferrari 550 Maranello, Techno-Classica 2018, Essen --MB-one 17:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Peulle 19:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful car. But I do not think the picture is good. The background and the sheet in the windshield are disturbing and the license plate holder does not look good. -- Spurzem 11:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The sheet and the license plate are not valid reasons for opposing IMO. I would support with a crop to minimize the disturbing background (see note). This would also avoid any privacy issues. Regards, Yann 12:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Yann: cropped. Thanks for the suggestion. --MB-one 14:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann 13:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - ok to me -- DerFussi 19:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 19:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination Wayside cross of Saint Vicente, Fuentes de Jiloca, Zaragoza, Spain. --Poco a poco 20:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Noisy, especially at bottom --Daniel Case 16:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info I've performed some improvements, a QI to me. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 19:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Quality is good enough, but it seems to be leaning to the right going up. Is that accurate or perhaps an optical illusion? -- Ikan Kekek 17:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    Ikan: I applied a +0,2 degrees tilt Poco a poco 15:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You leaned it more to the right! Sorry, I have to   Oppose for now. -- Ikan Kekek 06:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good now.--Ermell 07:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Yann 13:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed, downsized. --Smial 12:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Carschten 17:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek 06:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination NÖVOG V9 at Bahnhof Kirchberg an der Pielach, Austria.--GT1976 03:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Tilted ccw --Uoaei1 03:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)¨
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 03:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Tilt needs to be corrected --Uoaei1 05:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective not corrected, and overexposed. Yann 11:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. --Smial 08:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support   Comment I don't see the tilt. Would you mind highlighting it to me? GerifalteDelSabana 01:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @GerifalteDelSabana: Just look at the verticals of the buildings in the background. Tilt is very easy to correct and thus not acceptable. --Uoaei1 10:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No good lighting. The front is too bright. -- Spurzem 12:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1 and Spurzem -- DerFussi 08:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Thanks for the hints, now I see it also clearly. --GT1976 18:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline? DerFussi 08:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Mon 17 Sep → Tue 25 Sep
Tue 18 Sep → Wed 26 Sep
Wed 19 Sep → Thu 27 Sep
Thu 20 Sep → Fri 28 Sep
Fri 21 Sep → Sat 29 Sep
Sat 22 Sep → Sun 30 Sep
Sun 23 Sep → Mon 01 Oct
Mon 24 Sep → Tue 02 Oct
Tue 25 Sep → Wed 03 Oct