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 April 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 April 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 April 23 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]] 12:42, 23 April 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

April 23, 2024[edit]

April 22, 2024[edit]

April 21, 2024[edit]

April 20, 2024[edit]

April 19, 2024[edit]

April 18, 2024[edit]

April 17, 2024[edit]

April 16, 2024[edit]

April 15, 2024[edit]

April 14, 2024[edit]

April 13, 2024[edit]

April 12, 2024[edit]

April 9, 2024[edit]

April 8, 2024[edit]

April 7, 2024[edit]

April 5, 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:Detlev-Rohwedder-Haus_2015.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Detlev-Rohwedder-Haus in Berlin --Perituss 03:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry, I disagree. The right side is leaning in, sharpness low, disturbing cropped automobiles. --XRay 07:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 07:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Berkelland-Rietmolen,_de_Sint-Caeciliakerk_RM515564_IMG_0128_2024-03-10_14.08.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rietmolen-NL, church: the Sint-Caeciliakerk--Michielverbeek 06:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Feels a bit dark but ok --Poco a poco 07:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO it‘s to dark and not sharp enough. --JoachimKohler-HB 13:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done brightened the church --Michielverbeek 07:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good now -- Spurzem 11:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 02:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 14:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Silence,_Barcelona_(P1170637).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Acciona scooter by Silence Mobility in Barcelona --MB-one 09:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose. Neutral The scooter is too dark. Please discuss -- Spurzem 10:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem: ✓ Done raised shadows. Thanks for the review. --MB-one (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I don't see any significant improvement yet. However, it is difficult with a largely black vehicle. The rear swing arm should be more clearly visible. Best regards -- Spurzem 20:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Flamants_à_Thyna_(Sfax)_edited.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Greater flamingos at Thyna salt plains, Tunisia (by El Golli Mohamed, edited by Aristeas). – Aristeas 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Derivative work of an image that is already QI, I don't understand this nom, to bo honest --Poco a poco 19:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Exactly that’s the point. The original image is a QI in spite of being noticeably underexposed, tilted, and showing CAs. This version improves all these points. To be honest I wonder why the original image has ever been promoted to QI status. I do not want to propose to delist it (seems we do not have rules for delisting or replacing QIs, do we?), but if people search for a QI of that subject they should at least find also this improved version, not only the defective original one. This is why I have nominated the derivative version, and why IMHO this deserves a discussion. --Aristeas 09:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment The source is also a featured picture with ten supporting votes and five opposing votes. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Yes, that’s a different story. The nominator did not offer the edited version as an alternative although several users suggested that and even more voters noted shortcomings of the original picture. Hence the FP status does not mean that the original version is better. Therefore I would suggest that we assess the edited image (the one nominated here) according to the usual QI criteria. If one thinks that it is bad (or even worse than the original one), clearly one should vote with “oppose”. If one thinks both images are equally good, one can vote “oppose” for the reason given by Poco a Poco above (no need to promote a derivative version when the original one is rightly a QI). However if one thinks that this edited image fulfills the criteria of the QI guidelines and is better than the original one, one could vote with “support”. --Aristeas 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I did not create this derivative version in order to get “yet another QI” etc., but just because I wanted to help other people – the photographer did not react to the suggestions made by several people for improving the original image. Now IMHO it would be just correct that people who search for a “good image” (QI etc.) of this subject will not find only the original one, but also the edited version. – Aristeas 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I am fine with a replace (this one becomes QI, the other one revokes it) but not with granting 2 QI stamps to the same picture Poco a poco 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This image clearly meets the criteria for QI. We have no rules against nominating derivative work. I don't see why this very good image should not get the QI mark. --Kritzolina 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Poco.--Ermell 08:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The problem is homemade. Photos that have already been given a badge must not be overwritten. FP can have their status revoked, but QI cannot. I could not find a rule that very similar or (improved) derived photos may not have a QI badge. In a pragmatic world, such a revision would have simply been copied over the existing version with the note "If you don't like it as the image author, please reset". I've done this a few times with QI candidates. But, see rule 1: You're not allowed to do that with photos that have already won an award. I don't currently see anything that would prohibit the QI status for both images. --Smial 11:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Kritzolina. --Smial 11:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 08:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Christopher_church_in_Ampiac_(5).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Portal of the Saint Christopher church in Ampiac, commune of Druelle Balsac, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 05:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support A bit dark overall but ok --Poco a poco 06:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The "restless" shadows bother me a lot. Please discuss whether the photo is still a quality image. -- Spurzem 17:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't have a problem with those shadows. --Sebring12Hrs 09:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows are distracting. --Tagooty 02:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The shadows are there in reality due to the tree in front of the church, and the picture shows the door as a visitor would see it on a sunny day. IMO it's even capturing that atmosphere. --Plozessor 04:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Plozessor, Your explanation reminds me of the photo I've often mentioned of the black cat in the dark basement with no light. Best regards -- Spurzem 11:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Towers_from_43rd_floor_of_Mori_Tower.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A view from the cafeteria on the 43rd floor of Mori Tower, looking toward Roppongi Hills Residence B and C. --Grendelkhan 05:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • perspective distortion, correction is needed --F. Riedelio 07:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • At this angle , i don't think perspective correction makes sense . --Grendelkhan 08:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please do not send anything to CR without a vote. Reset to "Nomination". --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question What does "CR" mean? --F. Riedelio 07:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Does "CR" refer to the discussion? --F. Riedelio 09:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info I referred to the fact that there hadn't been a valid reason to send this image to CR by turning "/Nomination" to "/Discuss" because there was no vote. Commons:Quality images candidates clearly states this:
    "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" --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose However, I do not want to start an edit war over this. So I oppose this image, even though it looks interesting; the distorted perspective by the wide-angle close-up view of the highrises is a bit too much IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I share Grendelkhan's view that this picture would work without PC ("fixing the verticals" would probably make it look unnatural). It could also fit into QI "perspective" category.
  •  Info Unsigned vote stricken. Please sign your votes. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Oops! --Plozessor 04:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective correction does not make sense in this extreme case, we are clearly looking down. We can also see this as an intentional depiction of the vertiginous perspective from a skyscraper. Overall quality is good. – Aristeas 13:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment For many photos with a similarly strong perspective projection, some people here on QIC demand that vertical walls are also necessarily depicted vertically. Otherwise they will be rejected. Of course, this applies to views looking angularly upwards. As a result, photographers have been uploading completely absurdly corrected images for some time now, as otherwise there is a high risk that the coveted badge will be denied. These extremely forced corrected photos look like shit and completely unnatural, but they have the badge. Why does this double standard exist depending on whether someone is looking up or down? --Smial 12:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   –-Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Seattle_in_April_2024_-_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination University Village, Seattle --Another Believer 02:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 08:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 18:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Seattle_in_April_2024_-_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Shake Shack, University Village, Seattle --Another Believer 02:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 06:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 18:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Boronti_Lake.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Baranti Lake --Rangan Datta Wiki 08:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Go both, lake and cycler. --PetarM 09:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA and dust spot should be removed. --Ermell 10:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell. Looks also tilted 1°CW to me. --Milseburg 07:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 07:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Knysna_(ZA),_Knysna_River,_Ufer_--_2024_--_2427.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Banks of the Knysna River, Knysna, Western Cape, South Africa --XRay 03:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the picture is blurred --Bgag 13:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is blurred. Charlesjsharp 07:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support some very small remains of CA, and somewhat soft, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 12:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Just sharpness, structure and CAs improved a little bit. --XRay 14:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. Yann 13:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Nice composition, but sorry, per others.--Alexander-93 21:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Yann. --SHB2000 21:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 20:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp. Sorry --LexKurochkin 08:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I've to agree, it lacks sharpness --Poco a poco 08:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 08:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Mon 15 Apr → Tue 23 Apr
  • Tue 16 Apr → Wed 24 Apr
  • Wed 17 Apr → Thu 25 Apr
  • Thu 18 Apr → Fri 26 Apr
  • Fri 19 Apr → Sat 27 Apr
  • Sat 20 Apr → Sun 28 Apr
  • Sun 21 Apr → Mon 29 Apr
  • Mon 22 Apr → Tue 30 Apr
  • Tue 23 Apr → Wed 01 May