Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

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.


Guidelines

[edit]

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.


Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

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 unless the photographer is a Commons user. (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.

Resolution
[edit]

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 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.

Value
[edit]

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]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

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. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

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 --~~~~ | }}

to

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 --~~~~ | }}

to

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.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first 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 consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 2024.
  • 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 16 2024 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 cannot 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

Nominations

[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 11:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert 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 you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


September 16, 2024

[edit]

September 15, 2024

[edit]

September 14, 2024

[edit]

September 13, 2024

[edit]

September 12, 2024

[edit]

September 11, 2024

[edit]

September 10, 2024

[edit]

September 9, 2024

[edit]

September 8, 2024

[edit]

September 7, 2024

[edit]

September 6, 2024

[edit]

September 5, 2024

[edit]

September 4, 2024

[edit]

September 3, 2024

[edit]

September 2, 2024

[edit]

September 1, 2024

[edit]

August 31, 2024

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

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".



File:Lancia_Fulvia_Coupé_HF_-_Vernasca_Silver_Flag_2024_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lancia Fulvia Coupé HF on display in Castell'Arquato on the occasion of the Vernasca Silver Flag 2024 --Hotolmo22 12:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 11:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is too distorted, not just the background but also the rear of the car. The lighting is also very poor. No offense, but in my opinion a quality image looks different. -- Spurzem 16:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Heavy perspective warp.--Peulle 10:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 10:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 10:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Nai_Lert_Park_Heritage_Home_(2023_December)_-_img_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nai Lert Park Heritage Home --Chainwit. 17:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 10:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but too low level of details in my opinion --Jakubhal 11:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose If it would have been taken with a proper camera, I'd say increase the shadows and sharpen it during raw conversion and it would be good. But that not probably not possible for a smartphone picture. --Plozessor 10:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 10:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Tangail_DC_Lake,_Bangladesh_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tangail DC Lake --Kryesmin 13:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 10:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but this composition doesn’t work for me. The subject is photographed from an awkward angle and is in shadow, while the background features a much brighter bush that draws attention away from the subject. --Jakubhal 11:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
It is not optimal, in the enlarged view it is barely --Georgfotoart 17:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed smartphone picture (see the ground). --Plozessor 10:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. Also, the categories and description are insufficient.--Peulle 10:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 10:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 10:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Tangail_DC_Lake,_Bangladesh_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tangail DC Lake --Kryesmin 13:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 10:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burned sky and strong chromatic aberration --Jakubhal 11:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • well, maybe everything unnecessary could be cut off --Georgfotoart 17:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. Fix the perspective, crop around the sculptures and improve the description, then it would be ok. --Plozessor 11:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Multiple issues. Also, the categories and description are insufficient.--Peulle 10:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 10:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

File:منزل_على_واد_بوزنيقة.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Beach house at the mouth of the Bouznika River in Morocco. --User:Mounir Neddi 18:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Downscaled, EXIF data indicate it is from facebook (possible copyvio) --C messier 20:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the note. I uploaded the image to Commons before sharing it on Facebook. Is this wrong? Can you please share with me the tool you received to see where images were shared? User:Mounir Neddi 21:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Oh Gawd, wrong image. The review was for this image. Don't know who it ended up here... --C messier 18:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CAs. --Sebring12Hrs 11:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Green CA in the left part, purple CA in the right part, perspective, empty description. --Plozessor 04:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

File:La_Sionne_à_La_Sionne.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Sionne through the village of La Sionne. --Espandero 20:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose unbalanced exposure --Georgfotoart 11:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition is OK for QI. --C messier 18:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Georgfotoart and C messier: Converted your comments to votes, otherwise it doesn't make sense to discuss here. Please adjust if you disagree. --Plozessor 05:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is slightly overprocessed/oversharpened (the camera should do better), but still ok. No issues with composition or exposure. --Plozessor 05:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Особняк_А.Б._Нейдгарта_Кирочная_40_Санкт-Петербург_лето_2024_03.png

[edit]

  • Nomination Alexey Neidhardt Mansion, Saint Petersburg --Никонико962 20:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --ThibautRe 21:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see CA on the cars, on the windows, on the edges of shadows, on street lantern and in other places. Not QI for me, let's discuss. Alexander Novikov 17:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CAs. --Sebring12Hrs 07:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The main building seems free of CAs. Maybe a square crop to remove the corners could help? -- ThibautRe 17:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, per ThibautRe, crop might help. --Plozessor 04:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Langenlois_Kirche_Flügelaltar_Barbara_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Barbara at the winged altar of the parish church Langenlois, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 03:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough in the bottom, look to the hand --Michielverbeek 04:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough / lack of DoF. --Plozessor 05:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough for an A4 size printout. Nice lighting and composition. --Smial 22:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Our_Lady_of_Loreto_chapel_in_Poirino_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Our Lady of Loreto chapel in Poirino, Piedmont, Italy. --Tournasol7 04:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Bgag 04:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadows on the building are extremely distracting. The perspective correction was also poorly done. Others may see it differently, but for me the photo is not a quality image. -- Spurzem 15:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main object is partly shadowed by a tree. In this case I just would not try to make this photo because the quality would be too poor --Michielverbeek 20:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support I probably wouldn't have chosen 100% perspective correction here, but slightly less, and I might have tried to make the shadows more plausible by somehow including the trees in the picture. --Smial 22:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@Smial: Ich wundere mich täglich mehr, was hier alles als Qualitätsbild ausgezeichnet wird. Vielleicht sollte ich wirklich doch noch das schon oft erwähnte Bild von der schwarzen Katze im dunklen Keller ohne Beleuchtung präsentieren. Es müsste als exzellentes Kunstwerk durchgehen. Aber ich habe mir vorgenommen, mich nicht mehr mit einem Beitrag zu bewerben. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem 10:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Spurzem: Gegen welche der Commons:Image guidelines wird hier denn konkret verstoßen? Die Perspektive ist deutlich besser als bei vielen anderen Bildern und aus meiner Sicht einwandfrei. Den Schatten mögen manche als störend empfinden, aber das ist wohl Geschmackssache - auf mich wirkt das Bild gerade durch den Schatten ansprechend, ich bekomme das Gefühl, als wäre ich dort. Und dort steht nun mal ein Baum und die Kirche sieht an einem sonnigen Tag halt so aus, und als Besucher würde ich sie genau so sehen. Deine schwarze Katze im Keller würde ich nicht sehen, weil ich nicht auf die Idee käme, deine schwarze Katze in deinem dunklen Keller zu besuchen oder einen Wikipedia-Artikel über schwarze Katzen in lichtlosen Kellern zu schreiben. --Plozessor 04:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Ein solcher Artikel wäre aber möglicherweise noch viel interessanter als einer über „Kirche im extremen Schatten eines Baumes“. ;-) Ich hätte die Kirche bei diffusem Licht fotografiert. Aber die Geschmäcker sind wirklich sehr verschieden. Ich habe am liebsten Fotos, auf denen das Hauptmotiv ungestört zu erkennen ist. -- Spurzem 12:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@Spurzem: Entschuldige bitte ;) de:Benutzer:Plozessor/Schwarze Finsterkatze --Plozessor 15:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Hallo Plozessor, ich sage nur: Großartig! Diese Fotos sollten gleich unter FP vorgestellt werden. Sie übertreffen meinen entsprechenden Versuch bei Weitem. Und Dein Artikel zu den Aufnahmen ist fast noch besser. Er ist lesenswert und sollte schon bald als Artikel des Tages auf der Hauptseite von Wikipedia präsentiert werden, spätestens aber am nächsten 1. April. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem 16:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support, I think the shadow even adds to the atmosphere. --Plozessor 04:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Strong support Lovely --GoldenArtists (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 08 Sep → Mon 16 Sep
  • Mon 09 Sep → Tue 17 Sep
  • Tue 10 Sep → Wed 18 Sep
  • Wed 11 Sep → Thu 19 Sep
  • Thu 12 Sep → Fri 20 Sep
  • Fri 13 Sep → Sat 21 Sep
  • Sat 14 Sep → Sun 22 Sep
  • Sun 15 Sep → Mon 23 Sep
  • Mon 16 Sep → Tue 24 Sep