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 January 2025.
  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 2025.
  • 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 17 2025 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]] 05:54, 17 January 2025 (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).


January 17, 2025

[edit]

January 16, 2025

[edit]

January 15, 2025

[edit]

January 14, 2025

[edit]

January 13, 2025

[edit]

January 12, 2025

[edit]

January 11, 2025

[edit]

January 10, 2025

[edit]

January 9, 2025

[edit]

January 8, 2025

[edit]

January 7, 2025

[edit]

January 6, 2025

[edit]

January 5, 2025

[edit]

January 3, 2025

[edit]

January 2, 2025

[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:St_Petrusius_church_in_St-Pereuse_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Petrusius church in Saint-Péreuse, Nievre, France. --Tournasol7 06:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Weak CA at the rooster. --Ermell 21:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
     Support I can't see any CA. --Sebring12Hrs 09:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose @Sebring12Hrs: CAs, although not major, clearly visible around rooster and top of pinnacle! --Scotch Mist 11:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Please don't remove my vote, but go to CR. --Sebring12Hrs 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
     Comment I see them, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 22:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Please note that your initial vote was not removed by me - apparently this now happens 'automatically' when 'Discuss' (or 'Comment'?) selected! --Scotch Mist 07:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
     Support CAs are not too big here, but the top is not very sharp, let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Frombork_2023_45.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Water Tower, St Nicholas Church & Copernicus Monument --Scotch Mist 08:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 09:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Thanks for review and annotations - have uploaded new version with processing artefacts removed - please review again. --Scotch Mist 10:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Do not remove my vote please. Overprocessing has been fixed. But perspective is worst than the previous version, look at the walls of the church at the right edge. --Sebring12Hrs 20:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
✓ Fixed @Sebring12Hrs: Thanks for reviewing again - new version uploaded after PC - please note that your initial vote was not removed by me - apparently this now happens 'automatically' when 'Discuss' (or 'Comment'?) selected after Review! --Scotch Mist 11:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's good now, thanks. --Sebring12Hrs 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

File:2024-11-02_Germany,_Berlin,_Great_cormorant_DSC_9408_DxO_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great cormorant in Schlosspark Charlottenburg, Berlin --Lrkrol 15:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Rbrechko 16:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Many areas are clearly underexposed (plain black). Side note: I have fixed the categories properly, but normally I expect it to be done by the nominator. --A.Savin 08:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful image with interesting lighting and very good sharpness. -- Spurzem 22:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose It's beautiful artistic image, but I agree with A.Savin - the body of the bird is too black and lacks details. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Zelenograd_9th_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow suburbs --Perituss 11:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Small CA patches on some areas (does not affect quality), reasonable noise and depicts subject appropriately. Overall good quality. --A.B.123 22:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Not convinced by the perspective correction. --Olivier LPB 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective is overall ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 09:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Olivier LPB. The corners of the buildings seems tilted outside and the far corners are slightly crooked.
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Vsatinet 22:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Ponte_di_Rialto_shops_Venice_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination People crossing Ponte di Rialto, Venice. --Kallerna 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose What is the subject of the photo, blurred people at the front disturb the photo. --Olivier LPB 17:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, the idea is to show the movement of people across Rialto bridge and the shops nearby. --Kallerna 10:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Moving this to CR. Please do not revert to "/Nomination" once there is a vote. Thanks --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No QI for me. The idea was good but the result is not the kind we like. -- Spurzem 22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Lidzbark_Warmiński_2023_44_Collegiate_Church_Plaques.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plaques in Collegiate Church, Lidzbark Warmiński --Scotch Mist 07:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose good photo but Insufficient quality, sorry. --Reda Kerbouche 13:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Was in two minds whether or not to nominate this image for QI as given the small sizes of the metal plaques I think ideally the image should be re-scaled. As nomination now opposed I thought in this instance I should seek the views of others. --Scotch Mist 16:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @Scotch Mist: Please do not change another user's vote, or convert a decline into a discussion. The discussion vote is used when one party (not the original poster) has voted support and another oppose. --A.B.123 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @A.B.123: Did not change vote - this happened 'automatically' (on selecting 'Discuss') - did not realize it was forbidden to forward a nomination for discussion once an 'oppose' had been lodged - are you sure about this (as it is not evident from the 'Consensual review rules' below)? --Scotch Mist 09:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I may be in err, as I have not been active recently but from what was previously discussed on COM:QIC about two years ago was that the poster was not able to change the status to Discuss; however, this may be outdated information on my side, I will refer to the rules. --A.B.123 17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • IMO anybody (including the nominator) can send a picture to discussion if he disagrees with a promotion or decline. Picture should not be sent to discussion if there are just comments but no votes. --Plozessor 03:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low quality, not sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 09:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Audi_Q6_e-tron_DSC_7041.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Audi Q6 e-tron in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 18:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Горбунова М.С. 20:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Messy background. --Smial 12:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It should be possible to get much better photos of this car. -- Spurzem 22:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Renault_5_E-Tech_Electric_DSC_7163.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Renault 5 E-Tech Electric in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 18:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Горбунова М.С. 20:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Messy background. --Smial 12:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Smial. -- Spurzem 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Audi_e-tron_GT_DSC_7347.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Audi e-tron GT in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 18:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Горбунова М.С. 20:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Messy background. --Smial 12:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't understand why there are taken photos of cars without registration, parked in a crowd waiting to be delivered. Also, the image is too dark in the area of ​​the rear wheel and the lower part of the rear, and the windows look milky. -- Spurzem 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Interno_delle_chiesa_di_Santa_Maria_Ausiliatrice_-_Torino.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interno delle chiesa di Santa Maria Ausiliatrice - Torino.jpg --TorinoDoc 11:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Beautiful composition but too dark, sorry. --Olivier LPB 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment increased brightness--TorinoDoc 14:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Brightness is ok for me (now), but  Question what are those white spots in the shadows (for example on the benches)? Looks like this would be a scan of a dusty paper photo. --Plozessor 08:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Imo it's just very noisy due to high iso and shadows show it more, though noise is seen throughout the hole scene. Not too dark for me, but the centre could be a little brighter, though it's obvious in reality it was a very dark place. --Горбунова М.С. 09:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment This doesn't look like sensor noise to me. Sensor dust probably. --Plozessor 14:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment fully reworked,thank you --TorinoDoc 16:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Looking great now! --Горбунова М.С. 18:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good now ! --Sebring12Hrs 09:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality. --Benjism89 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 09 Jan → Fri 17 Jan
  • Fri 10 Jan → Sat 18 Jan
  • Sat 11 Jan → Sun 19 Jan
  • Sun 12 Jan → Mon 20 Jan
  • Mon 13 Jan → Tue 21 Jan
  • Tue 14 Jan → Wed 22 Jan
  • Wed 15 Jan → Thu 23 Jan
  • Thu 16 Jan → Fri 24 Jan
  • Fri 17 Jan → Sat 25 Jan