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. (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 January 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 January 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 January 11 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]] 03:23, 11 January 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


January 11, 2024[edit]

January 10, 2024[edit]

January 9, 2024[edit]

January 8, 2024[edit]

January 7, 2024[edit]

January 6, 2024[edit]

January 5, 2024[edit]

January 4, 2024[edit]

January 3, 2024[edit]

January 2, 2024[edit]

January 1, 2024[edit]

December 31, 2023[edit]

December 30, 2023[edit]

December 21, 2023[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:Centro_de_interpretación_románico,_Luesia,_Zaragoza,_España,_2023-01-04,_DD_63.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Reredos of St Fabian and Sebastian, Romanesque interpretation centre, Luesia, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 07:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 17:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the crucifixion scene at the top and the top panel on the right are too bright and the colors are therefore unnatural. I know from experience how difficult it is sometimes to photograph such painting, but in my opinion difficulties are not a criterion for a quality image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version --Poco a poco 20:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support O.K. for me.--Ermell 22:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 22:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Centro_de_interpretación_románico,_Luesia,_Zaragoza,_España,_2023-01-04,_DD_61.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Reredos of Our Lady of the Rosary, Romanesque interpretation centre, Luesia, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 07:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As I see it, the niche is very distorted. Please discuss whether this is a quality image. -- Spurzem 19:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The niche is not distorted, it IS NOT rectangular. And one more thing, dear Spurzem, it would look less suspect if you would promote one of my pictures. Your last 10 reviews were declines or CRs after a supporting votes. Therefore I consider your votes biased Poco a poco 09:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose This could be a very good image, but the distortion must be fixed and the contrast should be increased (it uses only 77 % of the available brightness range). --Plozessor 05:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment If the niche is not rectangular then I take back the comment about it, but still this picture is too dark, this can easily be fixed though. --Plozessor 12:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: It is of course possible that the niche was adapted to the crooked retablo of the altar. But I don't think so. – Otherwise: Why am I biased when I see clear defects in a photo? Can pictures only be praised here? Best regards -- Spurzem 19:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
If you consider your behaviour civic, who wonders that you have one conflict after the other --Poco a poco 20:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ New version --Poco a poco 20:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

File:201_Dome_Mosque_11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial photographs of 201 Dome Mosque, Tangail District, Bangladesh. --আফতাবুজ্জামান 18:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Certainly sharp and beautiful composition but about half of the small stuppas have moire pattern. --C messier 20:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good and interesting image -- Spurzem 16:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good as QI --Kritzolina 20:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Οδός_Κυρρήστου_16_και_Ερεχθέως,_Πλάκα_3829.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The neoclassic house in Plaka, Athens. --C messier 20:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose a bit noisy. Otherwise good. --MB-one 21:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 18:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose A bit noisy and, due short distance plus extreme PC, looking very unnatural. Might look better when compressing it vertically a bit. (Btw, don't know why it was moved to Discussions as I don't see an contradicting votes.) --Plozessor 06:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Because MB-one doesn't agree with me.... there's no point in waiting his red vote. --Sebring12Hrs 12:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support. The perspective correction is a bit unnaturally. But I know QIs which are less succeeded. -- Spurzem 17:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Aristeas (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Open_Wing_Basking_of_Phalanta_phalantha_(Drury,_1773)_-_Common_Leopard_WLB_DSC_3139.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Open Wing Basking of Phalanta phalantha (Drury, 1773) - Common Leopard. This specimen belongs to sub species Phalanta phalantha phalantha (Drury, [1773]) – Oriental Common Leopard in India.This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Butterfly. --TAPAN1412 17:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality (added the species category). --C messier 21:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Lack of detail, bluish artifacts left wing near the top. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. I see no lack. Good quality to me. -- Spurzem 17:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I may be wrong. Essentially all images of this species, including several QIs, look unusually blurry, without any trace of scales (except for the wing edges) and with very blurry or even entirely missing hairs on the body. However, look at the brightly colored dots everywhere. Blue dots in the black areas on the wings, yellow, light blue and reddish dots on the body, especially in the lower thorax and upper abdomen. The tip of the abdomen looks like it is fused to the lower left wing. If you look at the edge of the upper left wing, you can see greyish-blue areas that separate a part of the light orange scales protruding from the outer edge of the wing from the rest of the wing. All of this may just the result of the substandard monitor I am looking at, but serious overprocessing looks like a much more likely cause with an ISO of 3,200 and hardly any visible noise. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert Flogaus-Faust. Whether it's the butterfly or the leaves, it's not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 01:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert Flogaus-Faust. --Tagooty 08:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Over-processed and nowhere near QI. Charlesjsharp 10:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, massively overprocessed, originally noisy high-ISO picture. --Plozessor 17:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Pörtschach_Johannaweg_Park_und_Pyramidenkogel_25122023_0363.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Park on Johannaweg with Pyramid Ballon in the background, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bgag 04:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I'm not really convince with the clouds over the Pyramid Ballon. They are looking burned. Sorry again. --Milseburg 10:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Milseburg: Thanks for your review. I uploaded an improved version. —- Johann Jaritz 08:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support looks good enough to me --MB-one 10:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support New version is ok. --Plozessor 05:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose that still looks unnatural and overprocessed -- Smial 15:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 10:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Wed 03 Jan → Thu 11 Jan
  • Thu 04 Jan → Fri 12 Jan
  • Fri 05 Jan → Sat 13 Jan
  • Sat 06 Jan → Sun 14 Jan
  • Sun 07 Jan → Mon 15 Jan
  • Mon 08 Jan → Tue 16 Jan
  • Tue 09 Jan → Wed 17 Jan
  • Wed 10 Jan → Thu 18 Jan
  • Thu 11 Jan → Fri 19 Jan