Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎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 nominators[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements[edit]
  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 requirements[edit]

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 does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

Image quality[edit]

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 lighting[edit]

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 nominate[edit]

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 nominations[edit]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Evaluating images[edit]

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 review[edit]

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 promotion[edit]

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 decision[edit]

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 2016 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process[edit]

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 review[edit]

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 rules[edit]

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]] 13:53, 26 September 2016 (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 26, 2016[edit]

September 25, 2016[edit]

September 24, 2016[edit]

September 23, 2016[edit]

September 22, 2016[edit]

September 21, 2016[edit]

September 20, 2016[edit]

September 19, 2016[edit]

September 18, 2016[edit]

September 17, 2016[edit]

September 16, 2016[edit]

September 14, 2016[edit]

September 8, 2016[edit]

Consensual review[edit]


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 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg 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 Review[edit]


Lüdinghausen, Jüdischer Friedhof -- 2016 -- 3655.jpg

  • Nomination Jewish Cemetery in Lüdinghausen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good focus to main object, but sky is overexposed and spoil the photo. --Michielverbeek 06:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed I'd tried to fix this. Would you please so kind and check the image again? Thank you. --XRay 05:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed, it is looking much better and I don't see any reason for declining --Michielverbeek 05:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


29. Ulica - Krakowski Teatr Tańca - Estra & Andro - 20160708 2649.jpg

  • Nomination Cracow Dance Theatre in the show "Estra & Andro" at 29. ULICA – The International Festival of Street Theatres in Kraków --Jakubhal 21:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice action shot sharp and all, but all the cut things on the right side as opposed to the extra space on the left really spoil the picture. I doubt very much that this is salvageble since any cropping would cut off other things. Pity. --W.carter 08:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, don't see any problem with the composition --Moroder 18:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose After thinking about it for a while, I'm coming down on the side of W.carter with a weak oppose vote. The shot is difficult given the movement, but the dancer on the right is cut tightly as well as being out of focus. It's a shame given the quality of the rest of it, so I can only echo the first reviewer: pity.--Peulle 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Face of the main person in the center of the image out of focus. Sorry, I like the composition very much, colors and lighting are good and the action is really great captured. But the point of sharpness is somewhat random. Pity. --Smial 09:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Ps: Such scenes sometimes demand surprisingly high ISO settings to get short exposure times.
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


Villa Carlotta 3469.jpg

  • Nomination Villa Carlotta --Hamster28 07:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is overexposed, is there a way to get back the detail reducing the highlights? Poco a poco 20:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable, Light but not burned out. Overall high enough quality imo.--ArildV 17:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If the both of you can not decide: discuss--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 16:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was about to say the same; let's go to CR. @Hamster28:, please have a look at the review and see if you wish to make any changes to the image.--Peulle 17:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion {{{2}}}

File:Dahlia 'Happy Days' in Jardin des Plantes de Toulouse 03.jpg[edit]

Dahlia 'Happy Days' in Jardin des Plantes de Toulouse 03.jpg

  • Nomination Dahlia 'Happy Days' in Jardin des Plantes de Toulouse. By --Tournasol7 21:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality -- Spurzem 22:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I disagree, nothing is sharp --A.Savin 11:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree; the DoF is not deep enough so there is very few things sharp in this shot.--Peulle 09:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Sun 18 Sep → Mon 26 Sep
Mon 19 Sep → Tue 27 Sep
Tue 20 Sep → Wed 28 Sep
Wed 21 Sep → Thu 29 Sep
Thu 22 Sep → Fri 30 Sep
Fri 23 Sep → Sat 01 Oct
Sat 24 Sep → Sun 02 Oct
Sun 25 Sep → Mon 03 Oct
Mon 26 Sep → Tue 04 Oct