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 December 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 December 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 December 09 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]] 04:30, 9 December 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).


December 9, 2024

[edit]

December 8, 2024

[edit]

December 7, 2024

[edit]

December 6, 2024

[edit]

December 5, 2024

[edit]

December 4, 2024

[edit]

December 3, 2024

[edit]

December 2, 2024

[edit]

December 1, 2024

[edit]

November 30, 2024

[edit]

November 29, 2024

[edit]

November 28, 2024

[edit]

November 27, 2024

[edit]

November 24, 2024

[edit]

November 23, 2024

[edit]

November 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:46-206-0061_Kizliv_Wooden_Church_RB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wooden church in Kizliv, Lviv region, Ukraine. --Rbrechko 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose bottom crop, noisy sky --A. Öztas 21:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Fixable. --Ermell 21:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks. Reduced noise in the sky. --Rbrechko 14:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok IMO. --Plozessor 05:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 02:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Meran,_Panorama_(Blick_vom_Pulverturm).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramaansicht von Meran--Rolf Kranz 20:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose needs perspective correction --A. Öztas 21:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I don't see what perspektive should be corrected. -- Spurzem 09:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem: Look at the buildings in the left half of the picture: The closer they are to the edge, the more they tilt – the image is very curved there. The processing also looks kind of weird to me, especially the snowy mountain, but others can discuss about that. --A. Öztas 22:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 02:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:56-242-0082_Novomalyn_Castle_RB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castle tower in Novomalyn, Ukraine. --Rbrechko 18:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sharpness --A. Öztas 21:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't agree. As for me there are enough details on tower. --Rbrechko 21:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Not perfect but IMO above the bar. --Plozessor 05:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 12:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 02:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Hibiscus_Cato.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A Hibisus cato--Md. T Mahtab 11:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment veil around the edges, fixable? --A. Öztas 21:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question How did this get to discussions without a vote? --Plozessor 05:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Halo around the flower as a result of smartphone processing and strong JPG compression. Probably not fixable due no raw file. --Plozessor 05:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 12:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 02:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Fan_Zone_Mainufer,_Frankfurt_am_Main_(P1190143).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Supporter of the Spanish national team during a public screening of the final of the UEFA Euro 2024 at Fanzone Mainufer, Frankfurt am Main --MB-one 22:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry but the cropped man on the right is dristraying. --An insect photographer 12:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Tighter crop to get rid of the distraction as much as possible --MB-one 22:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok, with the new crop -- Jakubhal 05:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 02:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Amazigh_Museum_in_Azrou_1.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 02:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Gourdon_-_Jardins_du_Sénéchal_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gourdon (Lot, France) - Sénéchal gardens, near the same-name mansion --Benjism89 11:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment sensor dust on top left corner --A. Öztas 21:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Again, why is this here? --Plozessor 06:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Several dust spots, overall sharpness. --Plozessor 06:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've removed the dust spots. But I can't do much about the sharpness (weather was terrible on that day ...) --Benjism89 17:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 02:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Laetitia_De_Queiros_Soares_au_Festival_international_de_géographie_2024.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Laetitia De Queiros Soares au Festival international de géographie 2024Moi, en tant que détenteur des droits d’auteur sur cette œuvre, je la publie sous la licence suivante :. By User:Le Commissaire --Mickaël en résidence 08:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Peulle 08:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Below the bar in terms of sharpness/detail, I believe --Poco a poco 08:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's sharp enough. --Benjism89 10:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Benjism89. --Plozessor 05:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 20:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Pörtschach_Wahlißstraße_11_Villa_Johanna_O-Ansicht_26112024_5657.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Villa Johanna on Wahlißstraße #11, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 02:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural perspective correction. It looks like the tower-like part of the building is wider at the top than at the bottom. Furthermore, the roof is crooked. At this stage, I don't think the photo is a quality image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective has been over-"corrected" here and it's leaning out on both sides. It is really wider at the top than at the bottom, and it's also higher on the left side than on the right side. With this fixed it will still look distorted but then probably acceptable. --Plozessor 05:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 10:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for your reviews. Perspective has been corrected to natural. —- Johann Jaritz 07:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality for me. Tournasol7 17:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--ArildV 18:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Plozessor 06:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 06:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Azrou_Municipal_Stadium.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Azrou Municipal Stadium, Morocco. --User:Mounir Neddi 20:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --IrksomeBuccaneer2635 15:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed and not sharp. --Екатерина Борисова 00:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It would need slight perspective correction. Sharpness is borderline. Exposure is difficult here, for the actual subject (the stadium) it is ok, but the background is too bright. I guess it would benefit from Adobe "de-haze" or similar function during raw conversion.
  • Above vote stricken as unsigned.--Peulle 20:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
My bad, sorry.  Oppose. --Plozessor 06:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 11:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

File:วัดมหาธาตุ_สุโขทัย1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wat Mahathat, Sukhothai, Thailand (by Athichitra) --Felino Volador 04:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lrkrol 09:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Obvious artefacts of a sky replacement. --Julian Herzog 17:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Obvious artefacts of a sky replacement. --IrksomeBuccaneer2635 18:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sunrise in the background is apparently a stock photo or stolen from somewhere else. --Plozessor 05:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Do we have a category to tag such obvious fakes? -- PtrQs (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This picture took 1st place at Wiki Loves Monuments 2024 (Thailand), unfortunately – as here – it was not communicated anywhere that the sky was apparently replaced. Apart from artefacts and the lack of communication, all edges – especially of the columns – which have points of contact with the sky, are blurred. --A. Öztas 23:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 20:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 01 Dec → Mon 09 Dec
  • Mon 02 Dec → Tue 10 Dec
  • Tue 03 Dec → Wed 11 Dec
  • Wed 04 Dec → Thu 12 Dec
  • Thu 05 Dec → Fri 13 Dec
  • Fri 06 Dec → Sat 14 Dec
  • Sat 07 Dec → Sun 15 Dec
  • Sun 08 Dec → Mon 16 Dec
  • Mon 09 Dec → Tue 17 Dec