Commons:Quality images candidates

(Redirected from Commons:Qic)
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 13 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]] 09:24, 13 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 to see how you are doing).


May 13, 2024 edit

May 12, 2024 edit

May 11, 2024 edit

May 10, 2024 edit

May 9, 2024 edit

May 8, 2024 edit

May 7, 2024 edit

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

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:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Double-headed eagle of Russia on the top of Znamenka palace. Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    *  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Exterior detail of Palace of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. Znamenka estate, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    *  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_04.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Window pediment of Palace of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. Znamenka estate, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    *  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Salzburg_2014_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Salzburg Hauptbahnhof --Perituss 18:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Would be good if not for the bicycles down right. Sorry --MB-one 20:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. --C messier 20:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Langfenn,_chiesa_di_San_Giacomo_08.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Saint James church in Mölten, Italy --Syrio 09:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Please check the verticals. --Ermell 19:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
    Uhm they look good to me; could you explain? --Syrio 10:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    The church is leaning out when you look at the left side of the tower and the right side of the house. --Ermell 14:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    Uuuhm yeah but that's how it looks from this point of view? I'd have to warp the photo to make those lines vertical, the perspective would look wrong and I'm not really willing to do that :| --Syrio 15:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
      Support Looks good to me. Verticals seem in accordance with the perspective of the image. --Lrkrol 14:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Grande_aigrette.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Great egret in Djerba. By User:Skander zarrad --TOUMOU 17:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Lrkrol 18:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose Lighting too harsh, insufficient contrast between subject and background. Sensor spot top-left (fixable). --Tagooty 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose Per Tagooty --Nikride 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Photographers_in_Rabat.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Photographers at Mausoleum Mohammed V, Rabat --PetarM 13:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Romainbehar 19:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. The photographers are quite good but the post on the right adds nothing to the image (move to the left a little). Also, the three people in the background are too distracting, particularly the man in the middle doing something with his nose. --GRDN711 17:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support I opposed at FP but think this is perfectly fine for QI. BigDom 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Chapelle_Saint-Grégoire_(Marckolsheim).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Saint-Grégoire Chapel in Marckolsheim (Bas-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 19:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, too dark and tilted --Jacek Halicki 21:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Way underexposed. --Kallerna 15:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Done Better ? Gzen92 20:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good now, the white is bright as it should be but there is still detail there. BigDom 00:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 00:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Badajoz_-_Puerta_de_Palmas_-_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Badajoz (Extremadura, Spain) - Puerta de Palmas‎ --Benjism89 14:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 18:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It needs a perspective correction, top crop too tight --Poco a poco 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 07:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Poco a poco and Sebring12Hrs: Although I don't really agree with the demands for perspective correction (in my opinion, perspective correction should only be used when your subject is two-dimensional and you're not interested about everything around, which is not the case here), I did correct perspective and uncrop the top of it. Benjism89 11:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks better now to my eye. BigDom 03:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. Nacaru 09:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed, and possibly a slight cushion distortion. Foreground somewhat dark, but still acceptable. Irrespective of the fact that the image sharpness is definitely sufficient considering the image resolution: Is f/14 the "sweet spot" with the lens used or are we already seeing the first effects of diffraction blurring here? I would probably have used f/5.6 or f/8 with my cheap Tamron zoom (it's very soft at open aperture...), because from f/16 it gets visibly worse again. --Smial 23:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 00:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Stourhead_2022_027.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Stourhead House --Mike Peel 07:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 08:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I have to disagree. Sky is burnt. --Nacaru 10:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Don't think any of the sky is actually burnt/clipped, but a bit of treatment to decrease the highlights in that area would really improve the look of the image IMO. BigDom 03:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
    • @Nacaru and BigDom: Brightness redone, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 05:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
      •   Support Looks good to me. BigDom 08:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 08:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Fixed. Nacaru (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Nacaru (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Οικία_των_ψηφιδωτών,_Ερέτρια_1584.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination House of the Mosaics, Ancient Eretria. --C messier 22:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 06:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I disagree. Don't really understand the composition here. White wall at the back is showing on the right side, none of the bottom elements align. --Nacaru 08:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? Nacaru 23:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Schleswig-Holstein,_Todenbüttel,_Friedhof_NIK_0569.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Grab auf dem Friedhof von Todenbüttel --Nightflyer 11:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Tight crop. --SHB2000 23:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
      Support Tight crop, seriously ? --Sebring12Hrs 22:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
      Support The crop's fine to me. --ReneeWrites 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  Support Looks OK to me. Nacaru 23:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  Support--ArildV 07:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 08:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_072.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Tympanum at the Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork --Scotch Mist 06:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Bad crops and not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 11:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Another perspective? --Scotch Mist 13:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. And noise. And a strange perspective. Was there no better position for the camera to photograph the object so that it doesn't look so crooked? --Smial 00:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 00:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_071.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Tympanum at the Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork --Scotch Mist 05:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Not very sharp and noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 00:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    This type of stone sculpture does not have the inherent sharpness of a precise marble sculpture and also given the aged colouring perhaps appears overly noisey but IMHO the image is still worthy of consideration for QI! --Scotch Mist 08:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. Also unfortunate lighting. --Smial 00:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 00:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_061.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Relief of Madonna & The Magi at the Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork --Scotch Mist 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Comment I don't think it's sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 15:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    Another perspective? --Scotch Mist 22:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_112.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination River View of St Mary's Church, High Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork (Lightened Shadows!) --Scotch Mist 06:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • IMHO, it is better with the darker shadows. --C messier 16:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Another perspective? --Scotch Mist 13:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment: I agree with C messier, it kinda makes it look processed with the current shadows. Nacaru 01:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Done OK, thank you both for your comments - have reverted to previous version!--Scotch Mist 06:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  •   Support. Nacaru 00:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:14, 9 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)
  •   Support Not a FP but good quality also regarding the conditions. --Milseburg (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distracting background. --Kallerna 09:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment This has been here in CR since 3 May with no result, closing now. BigDom (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --BigDom (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination) edit

  • Sun 05 May → Mon 13 May
  • Mon 06 May → Tue 14 May
  • Tue 07 May → Wed 15 May
  • Wed 08 May → Thu 16 May
  • Thu 09 May → Fri 17 May
  • Fri 10 May → Sat 18 May
  • Sat 11 May → Sun 19 May
  • Sun 12 May → Mon 20 May
  • Mon 13 May → Tue 21 May