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 August 21 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]] 00:35, 21 August 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.

August 21, 2019Edit

August 20, 2019Edit

August 19, 2019Edit

August 18, 2019Edit

August 17, 2019Edit

August 16, 2019Edit

August 15, 2019Edit

August 14, 2019Edit

August 13, 2019Edit

August 12, 2019Edit

August 11, 2019Edit

August 10, 2019Edit

August 9, 2019Edit

August 8, 2019Edit

August 7, 2019Edit

August 6, 2019Edit

August 4, 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



  • Nomination The Palace of Westminster in London, the meeting place of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. By User:Mgimelfarb --大诺史 17:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   SupportGood quality. --Seven Pandas 19:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not clear enough with the zoom, sorry --Billy69150 23:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks great at the first glance, wonderful light, but if I view it at full size the quality is just not there, sorry. --Aristeas 09:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Increasing unsharpness to the left side, noise, WB looks unnatural. Good composition and lighting, but that is not enough, sorry. -- Smial 09:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 20:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Plains zebra with calf in the Etosha National Park --Domob 10:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion Nice to see such a photo, but unfortunately too blurry (ISO320 is really too much). Also the bottom crop is not well done --Michielverbeek 15:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      Comment I don't think ISO320 is the problem (my camera considers ISO200 the default, so this isn't really that high), but I agree that the crop is unfortunate and the zebras are rather soft. IMHO it might still be borderline QI, but that's up to you. --Domob 10:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
      Neutral IMHO Domob himself put it completely right. The ISO setting is fine, problems are (a) the unfortunate bottom crop and (b) the rather soft zebras. It’s a pity, because the light is really lovely. Even after looking 3 times at the image I cannot decide, therefore I vote “neutral” here. What do others think? --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. It's a pity, the calf is out of DOF, and the bokeh of the lens is... erm... not nice. But I can not see issues with noise and general sharpness. Composition and lighting are great, and quality is good enogh to be printed to letter size or more. --Smial 10:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 20:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Schmuckkörbchen oder Kosmee, aus der Familie der Korbblütler.--Fischer.H 09:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Support
    Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 10:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree. Oversaturated / overprocessed --Podzemnik 02:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Weak   Support. I agree that the image is oversaturated, but I know that many people out there would regard this high saturation as quite nice. @Fischer.H: Could you try to upload a version with a bit less saturated, more realistic colours? This could be the best compromise. --Aristeas 09:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination A tree in Georges-Poncet Park of Marcigny, Saône-et-Loire, Marcigny. --Chabe01 23:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 05:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Main theme is unknown (tree, Cedrus, species unidentified). --Kenraiz 12:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: The species has nothing to do with image quality. --Manfred Kuzel 04:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It has everything to do with image quality in terms of meeting the QI criteria. Please see "image page requirements" in the Guidelines: "images should have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages." As this image is neither very well titled, categorized nor has an accurate description of the subject, there is every reason to oppose. I also find that the image doesn't have good technical quality (mobile phones are often unable to give us high enough detail and sharpness), so I am going to   Oppose.--Peulle 07:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The technical quality is imho surprisingly good. The tree looks like a young Cedrus atlantica. I hope, we can get a better guess by a real expert. But overall, if you describe the image as "Young cedar at Parc Poncet Marcigny" it should be a good description. Greetings --Dirtsc 09:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Somewhat soft, and the sky is overprocessed, has strong posterisation/banding. -- Smial (talk)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 16:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Church of St. Ludwig, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 09:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Unsharp and overexposed. --Seven Pandas 18:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough IMO. Perhaps a bit too bright. --Ermell 21:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good photo, but overexposed. --Manfred Kuzel 06:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment   Exposure reduced Poco a poco 20:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Now it's better. Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 05:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    Manfred Kuzel: you're voting twice Poco a poco 17:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support good now. --Smial 10:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good now. --Aristeas 15:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 15:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA --Poco a poco 11:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment nice colours, but I would try to get rid of the perspective distortion (example here). My example is just a quick and dirty one and I actually did a bit too much --D-Kuru 18:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me --Podzemnik 00:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, and IMHO a case where perspective correction may lead to rather strange results, so I would leave this image as it is, because it is good as it is. --Aristeas 07:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support bitte nicht verzerren! --Ralf Roletschek 21:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment If you zoom in a lot, you will find some JPG compression artifacts. With ShiftN you would also get an acceptable and not too exaggerated perspective correction. --Smial 00:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective issue: the left is leaning more than the right.--Peulle 13:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Harald Krüger (left) at Geneva International Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 11:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose unnatural complexion --Sandro Halank 18:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for me --Uoaei1 19:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Which one is Mr. Krüger?--Peulle 07:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No reply, so I'm going to   Oppose as we can't see both people's faces.--Peulle 07:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment sorry for the delay. Mr Krüger is facing the camera. --MB-one 20:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 19:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Fiat 124 Sport 1973 at the Oldtimertreffen Gleisenau 2019 --Ermell 06:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   OpposeSorry, I don't think the front is sharp enough. --Peulle 07:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
      Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 10:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Unnötig hohe ISO-Zahl und unnötig kurze Belichtung, aber die Komposition ist gut und vor allem: Wir loben hier mitunter wesentlich schlechtere Bilder. -- Spurzem 20:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support wie Spurzem --Ralf Roletschek 21:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. --Manfred Kuzel 06:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)



  • Nomination Transmission tower at St. Jakob in Defereggen, Austria. --PantheraLeo1359531 10:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 14:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMO underexposed. Some sharpening would be good + removing CA --Podzemnik 00:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not really underexposed. If pixel peeping: some very small reflections are clipping. Such small reflective areas are of course completely irrelevant. However, I would recommend using s-curving to noticeably brighten the midtones, without the clouds appearing overexposed. I have nothing to criticize about the sharpness of the image. The fact that the sharpness decreases towards the top could be due to a perspective equalization, which is usually not criticized by the local authorities in many other pictures. Incorrectly applied resharpening usually spoils more than it improves. --Smial 12:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Translated with help of
  •   Support As explained by Smial above. Image is sharp and shows the lighting conditions during midday in summer. Though I would have brightened the shadows a little bit, it's not necessary with this kind of subject. Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think it is underexposed, sorry. --Manfred Kuzel 10:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Billy69150 11:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

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