Commons:Quality images candidates

Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文
float

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

PurposeEdit

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.

GuidelinesEdit

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominatorsEdit

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirementsEdit
  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.


CreatorEdit

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. (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 requirementsEdit

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

ResolutionEdit

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 does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

Image qualityEdit

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 lightingEdit

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.

ValueEdit

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominateEdit

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 nominationsEdit

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Evaluating imagesEdit

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to reviewEdit

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 and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


Grace period and promotionEdit

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from 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 decisionEdit

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 also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • 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 June 2016 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review processEdit

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 reviewEdit

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 can not make a decision, add your comments, but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rulesEdit

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

NominationsEdit

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 05:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

June 25, 2016Edit

June 24, 2016Edit

June 23, 2016Edit

June 22, 2016Edit

June 21, 2016Edit

June 20, 2016Edit

June 19, 2016Edit

June 18, 2016Edit

June 17, 2016Edit

June 16, 2016Edit

June 15, 2016Edit

June 14, 2016Edit

June 12, 2016Edit

June 11, 2016Edit

June 8, 2016Edit

Consensual reviewEdit

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 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg 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".


Consensual ReviewEdit

File:Ephèbe Antikythera NAMA Χ13396.jpgEdit

Ephèbe Antikythera NAMA Χ13396.jpg

  • Nomination The Ephebe of Antikythera, bronze statue larger than life found in a shipwreck, NAMAthens, Greece. Three versions availbale: natural, black bg, and .png version with transparent bg.--Jebulon 08:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but even before I checked the versions, I knew this background was artificially added. The result is not where you want it to be; it looks like those movies where you can see actors are standing in front of a green-screen. I'd revert it, or get a version with fewer people nearby.--Peulle 12:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Oh really ? Of course it is an artificial background ! Like many other of my museum pictures ! I don't really understand your comment. The goal is to emphazise the quality of the work, without disturbing surroundings elements, like marble statues here, small objects here, marble busts here, red background here or, closer, grey-reworked here. We have a bronze (metal) statue, so the light is particularily difficult to manage, it is easier for marble. See this or this. I don't know what do you mean, or what to do. There are very few "inside" pictures in QIC, and none museum pictures but mine right now. Please ask yourself: "why ?".--Jebulon 16:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I take it you wish to move the image to CR, then - consider it done. My opinion stands: I think this particular background creates a contrast which makes the image look artificial and overly edited. There is also no mention of the edit in the image description, which the guidelines say there should be. --Peulle 19:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Please have a look to the upload history of the file...--Jebulon 09:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree about the artificiality, but the cut out is a bit sloppy (see note). And maybe some curves will help to brighten the statue. --C messier 11:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 14:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Lübbenau_-_Marstall_0001_(infrared_and_partly_coloured).jpgEdit

Lübbenau - Marstall 0001 (infrared and partly coloured).jpg

  • Nomination Royal studs of the Lübbenau castle, Lübbenau/Spreewald, Brandenburg, Deutschland --DerFussi 15:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture is unsharp and I don't get the educational purpose of such partial color/BW process? --A.Savin 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is an educational purpose a part of the guidelines here? Discussion please -- DerFussi 18:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @DerFussi Ich nehme zu Kenntnis, dass du dich zu der eigentlichen Frage nicht äußern magst. --A.Savin 10:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have to admit. Its my old camera (haven't been satisfied with it). I have had the photo printed 3 years ago for my wall and didn't re-check it before uploaded it here. I admit. I should have done it. But still don't get the reason for the second comment. Painting a layer mask for the infrared layer took some days. I did it because it's just nice and focuses on the main object. So I am more puzzled abou the second comment. Thats why I have answered. -- DerFussi 15:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, the bot was faster than me (I just wanted to decline it by myself). I should not dig out my old photos. -- DerFussi 05:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support das Haus ist scharf. --Ralf Roleček 14:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not true. --A.Savin 19:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The house is definitely not sharp. Don't sell your reputation, Ralf. --Cccefalon 20:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry, wo nicht? Ich bin ja lernfähig. Bei 100% ist alles Farbige bei mir scharf? Was übersehe ich? --Ralf Roletschek 22:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 22:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Phalaenopsis_(01).jpgEdit

Phalaenopsis (01).jpg

  • Nomination Fleur de Phalaenopsis (orchidée) --Lepsyleon 20:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality -- Spurzem 21:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: See the annotation (someone left them already, but I agree with those notes) --Cccefalon 21:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it was me, --Hubertl 21:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is that better ? The stem will always be unsharped due to f/5. --Lepsyleon 22:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I´m afraid, it´s not. See additional notes.
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Bad separation ? Jpg errors ? I deleted them with the new version. I don't understand... --Lepsyleon 07:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The issues are still present. I stand my oppose. --Cccefalon 07:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The focus is OK (the stem being out of focus is no problem since it's the flower petals that are the main subject), but the big problem for me is the extreme white glare from the background, which spills over into the edges of the flower. It's just too bright for me. --Peulle 12:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreeing Peulle -- DerFussi 06:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   -- DerFussi 06:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

File:16-06-21-Eberswalde-RalfR-WP_20160621_16_55_57_Pro.jpgEdit

16-06-21-Eberswalde-RalfR-WP 20160621 16 55 57 Pro.jpg

  • Nomination sculpture by Paul Wunderlich, Eberswalde --Ralf Roletschek 19:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality -- Spurzem 20:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: There is posterization in the sky. --Cccefalon 21:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is an affiliated thread about this series of smartphone photos: on my talk page (in german language) --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You shot this with a Lumia? It's really not bad. Since the sculptures are the subject, I feel the general quality outweighs the sky problems. If you wish to please Cccefalon, I suppose you could crop out the sky entirely. --Peulle 12:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version uploaded. Yes, the EXIF are authentic, it's from a Lumia. --Ralf Roletschek 15:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree in this case. To me its still ok for a QI. -- DerFussi 05:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 10:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 10:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Fri 17 Jun → Sat 25 Jun
Sat 18 Jun → Sun 26 Jun
Sun 19 Jun → Mon 27 Jun
Mon 20 Jun → Tue 28 Jun
Tue 21 Jun → Wed 29 Jun
Wed 22 Jun → Thu 30 Jun
Thu 23 Jun → Fri 01 Jul
Fri 24 Jun → Sat 02 Jul
Sat 25 Jun → Sun 03 Jul