Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
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 May 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 May 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 May 06 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]] 09:49, 6 May 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 how you are doing).


May 6, 2024[edit]

May 5, 2024[edit]

May 4, 2024[edit]

May 3, 2024[edit]

May 2, 2024[edit]

May 1, 2024[edit]

April 30, 2024[edit]

April 29, 2024[edit]

April 28, 2024[edit]

April 27, 2024[edit]

April 26, 2024[edit]

April 24, 2024[edit]

April 23, 2024[edit]

April 22, 2024[edit]

April 20, 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:EBACE_2023,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(EB237703).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lavatory aboard a Pilatus PC-12 at EBACE 2023 --MB-one 22:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I'm sorry, but I disagree. The blurry element at the top is a bit strange. --Nacaru 23:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

File:022_Wild_Alpine_Ibex_Grammont_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wild alpine ibex massive mountains at Grammont --Giles Laurent 01:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Not sharp. --Tagooty 02:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
    The subject is the ibex and it was in focus and sharp enough in my opinion. Anyway, I just uploaded a new file with sharpened ibex. What do you think now Tagooty ? --Giles Laurent 11:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with Tagooty above. Still not sharp enough. --SHB2000 13:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New sharpened version uploaded. Press Ctrl+F5 with image open at full resolution on Windows or Cmd+R on Mac to update cache and see the new version. What do you think now Tagooty and SHB2000 ? --Giles Laurent 09:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, it's not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 14:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    Could you please elaborate what you consider is not sharp in the ibex @Sebring12Hrs? At such distance it is normal to not see every single hair of the animal, especially when the sun has already set and I think that even in these circumstances a sufficient enough amount of hair detail can be seen in this picture --Giles Laurent 18:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    The animal is sharp, but it is such a small part of the image that we expect better sharpness either of the foreground or the background. Yann 18:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your precision Yann. The thing is that at f2.8 (needed because of low light) and 104mm it is impossible to not have bokeh. In this case I think the subject of the image is the ibex and that the bokeh actually highlights the subject by separating it from the background. But I can understand that the subject beeing small, some people could be disturbed. But the fact of having the subject small was deliberate as the image was intended to showcase the animal in its habitat that is still very visible and distinguishable in my opinion. --Giles Laurent 18:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Bloemencorso_Zundert_2023_-_The_Jersey_Devil_figurant.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination An extra in front of "The Jersey Devil" taunts the creature with a piece of meat --ReneeWrites 06:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose IMHO, unfortunate top crop. --C messier 19:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor crop. --SHB2000 11:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Geumgang_Bridge,_Sokcho_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Geumgang Bridge, Sokcho, South Korea --Bgag 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Good but slightly tilted --Plozessor 03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)✓ Done You're right. --Bgag 15:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    No new version uploaded? --ArildV 08:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yes --Bgag 13:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good now. --Plozessor 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
    I don't understand. I see only one version here, and its tilted. --ArildV 21:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done My mistake. I have uploaded the new version. --Bgag 13:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Clearly QI now, good quality and composition.--ArildV 16:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Mini_Hatch_(J01)_IMG_8799.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mini Hatch (J01) in Böblingen --Alexander-93 07:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 08:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose. The car is very crowded. In addition, the transition between the roof and the light car in the background is barely visible. Incidentally, I find the license plate holder without a license plate unsightly. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Velden_Selpritsch_Kirchenweg_Filialkirche_hl._Andreas_Christophorus_20042024_4899.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Painting of Saint Christopher at the subsidiary church Saint Andrew on Kirchenweg in Selpritsch, Velden, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 01:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, it has good composition, but the top shadow kinda ruins it for me --Nacaru 23:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow is too disturbing for QI. -- Spurzem 12:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Nacaru and Spurzem. You could try with different RAW conversion settings (like increasing clarity and dynamics while reducing contrast) to reduce the extreme contrast between the bright and the dark part, but not sure if that would be enough. --Plozessor 04:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Beijing_city_subway_passage.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A photo showing a dark passage within the Beijing Subway during the Chinese new year celebrations --Nacaru 11:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The picture is too dark and I think you need to straighten it. --Shougissime 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Is the pic too dark or is that just what the environment looks like? That's an important distinction to make. --ReneeWrites 19:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The place was unusually dark for a metro corridor, it's why I took a picture of it. Also I cropped it a little on the left side to avoid having part of a wall poster on the frame. --Nacaru 21:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Opposing for now because it needs perspective correction (left side is leaning in, right side is straight). Brightness is ok. Shadows are a bit noisy, IMO still acceptable for the situation but maybe a bit stronger (chroma) noise reduction would further improve the image. --Plozessor 04:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now.
  • ✓ Done. @Plozessor and Shougissime: , perspective has been corrected and I have made it less dark. Nacaru 11:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. ReneeWrites 23:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Castello_di_Salorno_by_drone_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Drone shot of Haderburg, Salorno, Italy--Syrio 09:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Nacaru 11:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I think the image is a little bit to dark for QI. But I am not sure. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm agree with the comment above. If you can correct the darkness of the background, I think it could be a QI. --Shougissime 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not great at color correction but I've tried; is it enough? --Syrio 16:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem --Nikride 13:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition but it's still a bit dark and not very sharp. I don't think it's possible to improve it. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 14:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Bloemencorso_Zundert_2023_-_Afwas_1.png[edit]

  • Nomination Float of the 2023 flower parade of Zundert, titled "The dishes" --ReneeWrites 06:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Nice composition, but unfortunately lack of detail. --Alexander-93 07:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    Disagree - appears sufficient detail given the subject photographed!
     Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 09:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alexander --Jakubhal 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. I don't understand what „lack of detail“ will say. I miss nothing. -- Spurzem 21:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good composition. Nacaru 09:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support If you zoom in the picture, it is true that there is a little lack of detail, but the composition and light are good. The topic of the picture is also interesting. --Shougissime 18:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nothing wrong with this picture. --Plozessor 04:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Martin_church_in_Limayrac_(3).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Martin church in Limayrac, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality --Llez 05:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. It looks like the church is tipping backwards. In addition, the lighting is very unfavorable. Please discuss whether the photo is a quality image or whether a better shot could be imagined. -- Spurzem 09:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem -- Екатерина Борисова 07:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Verticals are fine. Exposure is good enough IMO. --MB-one 10:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per MB-one. --Sebring12Hrs 11:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment. It's amazing: If the verticals are right, a picture is good. Everything else doesn't matter. Every day I understand more and more why I no longer present photos here. -- Spurzem 13:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I don't like your attitude with me. Repect my vote please. I understand your opinion about the perspective, but I think it's acceptable here. --Sebring12Hrs 12:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural distortion due to over-corrected perspective from a close angle, sorry. Mike Peel 07:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • From a purely technical point of view, the perspective correction has actually been done very well, in particular the image sharpness is significantly better than in some other photos with corresponding editing. Colors, contrasts and exposure are also very well done, and the anonymized license plates are hardly noticeable. On the one hand, I don't like such extreme wide-angle perspectives, but on the other hand, technically worse pictures with similar perspectives have won awards in the past. Because of the danger of double standards, therefore, a somewhat inconsistent weak  Support from me. --Smial 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I am one of those who dont look just verticals to be fine (agree with Spurzem), because you see then trapez structure. But since isnt FP nom, is ok for QI. --PetarM 17:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Don't always agree with Spurzem but here I do. I would skew the picture (so that the left part becomes lower while the right part remains as it is). Then it would look more natural (and verticals would still be correct). --Plozessor 04:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Per Smial --PaestumPaestum 08:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I am not sure whether you wanted to close this, but please wait until the latest entry is at least 48 h old and please don't forget to change the status from "/Discuss" to the appropriate entry (such as "/Promotion") when you close the discussion about an image. I changed "QICresult" to "QICtotal". --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Sun 28 Apr → Mon 06 May
  • Mon 29 Apr → Tue 07 May
  • Tue 30 Apr → Wed 08 May
  • Wed 01 May → Thu 09 May
  • Thu 02 May → Fri 10 May
  • Fri 03 May → Sat 11 May
  • Sat 04 May → Sun 12 May
  • Sun 05 May → Mon 13 May
  • Mon 06 May → Tue 14 May