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 November 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 November 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 November 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]] 04:46, 16 November 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).


November 16, 2024

[edit]

November 15, 2024

[edit]

November 14, 2024

[edit]

November 13, 2024

[edit]

November 12, 2024

[edit]

November 11, 2024

[edit]

November 10, 2024

[edit]

November 09, 2024

[edit]

November 08, 2024

[edit]

November 07, 2024

[edit]

November 06, 2024

[edit]

November 05, 2024

[edit]

November 04, 2024

[edit]

November 03, 2024

[edit]

November 02, 2024

[edit]

October 31, 2024

[edit]

October 23, 2024

[edit]

October 21, 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:46-258-5002_Deers_in_Roztochchia_Reserve_RB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Deers in Roztochchia Reserve, Ukraine. --Rbrechko 08:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not that sharp, a bit noisy and motion blur on one of the ears. --A. Öztas 12:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Adequate for moving animals on a cloudy day. --Plozessor 11:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor --Nikride 12:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC))

File:46-206-0036_Busk_Court_RB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Townhall in Busk, Ukraine. --Rbrechko 10:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • May need some perspective correction; also the level of detail seems a bit low – fixable? --A. Öztas 12:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Could you explain where you see problems with perspective? Because windows in each buildings looks ok for me. The same question for details. Thanks. --Rbrechko 23:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The perspective is completely correct. However, I find the poor lighting unpleasant; the main subject is in the shadow. -- Spurzem 10:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No issue with sharpness and perspective, but shadows are too dark - taking a picture of the shady side of an object on a bright sunlit day is not optimal. Probably it can at least be improved with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 11:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

File:61-220-0002_Koshylivtsi_Church_RB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Old church in Koshylivtsi, Ukraine. --Rbrechko 10:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 10:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction --A. Öztas 12:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The church building is not straight. If you look at fence and buildings behind, you can see that they are not tilted. --Rbrechko 13:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No issue with perspective but with exposure. It's too dark. --Plozessor 11:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

File:2023_Dacia_Sandero_III_DSC_6012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dacia Sandero III in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 09:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 10:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The roof and windshield are a little too bright, the sheets on the dashboard are distracting, and the surroundings in which the car is photographed are extremely unpleasant. The license plate is also missing. In my opinion, the photo is not QI; please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The exposure seems acceptable to me and I don't care about the licence plate, but I have to agree with Spurzem on all other points. --Smial 21:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a car for sale at a dealership, so it has papers in the windshield and no license plate in reality. The surroundings are what they are; for my taste the car is adequately standing out from the background. That dealership's yard is apparently not beautiful, but it's supposed to be a documentary image, not a work of art. --Plozessor 03:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor.--Peulle 10:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: According to the description, the idea is to show an attractive picture of a Dacia Sandero III, not necessarily a car that is not yet registered and is parked in an unattractive yard. When I see something like that, I automatically think of the photo of the black cat in the dark basement with no light. There was nothing better to get than a dark rectangle. Maybe it would be a QI if I were to present it. Best regards -- Spurzem 12:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The description does not say anything of the sort. It simply states what kind of car it is.--Peulle (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
... and this car is presented in an extremely unattractive way. If I were the manufacturer, I would complain. ;-) -- Spurzem 14:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The image description is therefore incomplete; in the case of photos of people, it is usually also required that the circumstances of the photo shown be described, for example the location and name of an event and not simply the name of the person photographed. --Smial 15:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 19:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 10:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

File:S-charl,_Clemgia_zijrivier_van_de_Inn._12-10-2024._(d.j.b)_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination S-charl, rapids in the mountain stream Clemgia, a tributary of the Inn.
    --Famberhorst 05:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I don't think these are natural colors and the water looks like plastic due to intensive processing IMO. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 01:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see anything wrong here. The water looks like it does due to (probably intentional) long exposure. --Plozessor 05:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Just want to clarify my objection. This picture looks more like a wallpaper generated by AI than a natural landscape. It seems ugly and unnatural to me. No offense to the photographer, of course. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed and partly noisy. --Smial 18:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: The photo was taken with a long exposure time (8 sec.) on purpose. This was done with a gray filter. This will make the water look smooth. That was the intention. I did not sharpen the photo any more.--Famberhorst 18:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support With 8 s exposure time for a fast flowing alpine river the water looks as it looks like here. Colors are ok, too. --Zinnmann 18:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 23:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rbrechko 12:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Puente_de_Sheikh_Jaber_Al-Ahmad_Al-Sabah,_ciudad_de_Kuwait,_Kuwait,_2024-08-12,_DD_17.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah Bridge, Kuwait City, Kuwait --Poco a poco 07:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Image is stretched out horizontally. ReneeWrites 08:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version --Poco a poco 19:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The image has been cropped, but it still looks stretched out horizontally to me, especially on the left side. ReneeWrites 16:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree, I already applied a change of the aspect ratio although I hadn't applied a persepctive correcion. It's a wide angle shot, everything looking normal IMHO. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 15:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective and aspect ratio seem perfectly fine to me. Sharpness is adequate for f/11 which was chosen for a good reason. --Plozessor 05:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 14:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The picture is supposed to show the bridge, but most of it is lost in the pixel swamp. Sry. --Mosbatho 18:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Already two very similar QIs, and - bridge is far on the horizon. --Kallerna 09:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good shot over the distance and interesting. --Milseburg 17:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 23:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 17:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Kamp-Lintfort,_St._Josef,_2024-10_CN-01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Catholic St. Joseph's Church in Kamp-Lintfort, Germany. --Carschten 15:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Berthold Werner 15:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The tower looks too distorted and the east side is too dark. Please compare this version. In my opinion, the image proposed for evaluation is not a QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 07:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Plozessor 12:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Sebring12Hrs 13:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Hallo Tournasol7, Plozessor and Sebring12Hrs, it is interesting to see: If the vertical lines are vertical, the photo is a QI, no matter how distorted it is otherwise. Best regards -- Spurzem 19:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please.... Every perspective correction distords buildings, in this case I don't see a big distorsion. --Sebring12Hrs 22:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
@Sebring12Hrs: Look at the spire and the line above the clock. Both look very unnatural and could be better represented in the picture. See my edit. -- Spurzem 09:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Westmount_Public_Library_by_Rodrigo_Tetsuo_Argenton_(02).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Westmount Public Library greenhouse --Rodrigo.Argenton 09:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Needs a white balance adjustment ReneeWrites 10:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)  Support White balance is fine, see clarification below. Beautiful photo! ReneeWrites 10:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree; this is not a quality "issue", and also it is very similar light of the moment. Rodrigo.Argenton 13:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Color balance could be a bit colder, but it's also ok as it is. Unfortunately there is no EXIF data and we don't know at which time of day the picture was taken, the yellowish hue might even be realistic. --Plozessor 05:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment EXIF data says the picture was last edited at 11:39, though I'm unsure if that meant that's when the picture was taken. Another photo of the same set is at File:Westmount Public Library by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (04).jpg which shows a similar (though stronger) yellow hue. It's not realistic lighting even if the place was basking in morning/evening glow. And I'm not saying the yellow hue needs to be removed entirely, but I do think it should be adjusted. ReneeWrites 10:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I understand you had some thoughts about the photo. Given the time of day/location/and wildfire 1, I think the lighting is pretty accurate.
The "last edited" timestamp probably just means when the photo was exported.
We're mainly focused on the first photo for now. We can discuss the second one later. Edited version from -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the clarification. Could you add in the photo's description a bit about the unusual high level of air pollution at that time and place? There was nothing about that in the description or any of your other comments, so I didn't know about it, but it's an important bit of context. After that I will withdraw my opposing vote. ReneeWrites 10:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
ReneeWrites done; for some reason, I can't include links from the history here. Rodrigo.Argenton 01:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

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