Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Quality images candidates


Shortcut
COM:QIC
Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎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.

Contents

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 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 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 July 23 2018 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]] 00:30, 23 July 2018 (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.

July 22, 2018Edit

July 21, 2018Edit

July 20, 2018Edit

July 19, 2018Edit

July 18, 2018Edit

July 17, 2018Edit

July 16, 2018Edit

July 15, 2018Edit

July 14, 2018Edit

July 13, 2018Edit

July 12, 2018Edit

July 11, 2018Edit

July 10, 2018Edit

July 08, 2018Edit

July 07, 2018Edit

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   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".


Consensual ReviewEdit

File:2018-02-03_Junior_World_Championships_Luge_Altenberg_2018_–_Team_by_Sandro_Halank–13.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination 33rd Junior World Championship Luge, Altenberg 2018 – Team: Anna Smirnova (KAZ) --Sandro Halank 15:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose The bottom crop is really unfortunate --Poco a poco 15:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't mind the crop. The feet of that lady are not essential for this kind of "portrait". Otherwise good.
  •   Support OK for me. --Palauenc05 08:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment You know all of these images are tilted, right? Do we think that's a problem?--Peulle 11:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 16:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 08:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Wikimania_2018,_Cape_Town_(_1050602).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination African penguin on Boulders Beach, Cape Town --MB-one 08:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Inadequate description on image page. Too wide crop. Johannes Robalotoff 12:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Johannes Robalotoff: thanks for the comment. Fixed the description, disagree with the crop assessment. --MB-one 01:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral OK, as the framing is a matter of taste and the penguin is detailed and sharp, I am neutral now. Johannes Robalotoff 15:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Johannes Robalotoff 15:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

File:ਲੋਹੜੀ_Lohri.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination ਲੋਹੜੀ ਉੱਤਰੀ ਭਾਰਤ ਦਾ, ਖ਼ਾਸ ਕਰ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਅਤੇ ਹਰਿਆਣੇ ਦਾ ਇੱਕ ਮਸ਼ਹੂਰ ਤਿਉਹਾਰI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:. By User:Sukhan saar --Satdeep Gill 05:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion Would like to have some information about this picture in English.--GPSLeo 16:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      Done English description added --Satdeep Gill 15:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --GPSLeo 09:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree; there is very little sharpness (even taking the heat blur into account), and I find that light streak in front of the guy on the right disturbing.--Peulle 12:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 08:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Copsychus_saularis_@_Kuala_Lumpur_1.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Oriental magpie-robin (Copsychus saularis) at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Very slight pre-process posterization, I've no idea why. Also, the wet feathers that are reflecting the sunlight may be mistaken for artifacting.--GerifalteDelSabana 14:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Background too dark for bird --Atamari 14:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Atamari: The issue has been promptly addressed. --GerifalteDelSabana 14:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I'll go along with this one; the bird itself is sharp and the background isn't too distracting for QI.--Peulle 12:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Peulle --Sandro Halank 15:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support QI 4 me. --Palauenc05 08:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 15:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Pond_Heron_Safari_Park.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Pond Heron at Safari Park. By User:Abdulmominbd --RockyMasum 13:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Quite alot of visible noise but I still love it. --GerifalteDelSabana 13:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but not a QI like this, you'll have to find out the species ID and improve description+category --Poco a poco 14:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good photo, but bad description and category. Please fix this and I will support in spite of some visible noise. Johannes Robalotoff 11:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As it is, no. Too much noise, CA around the beak and insufficient categorization and description.--Peulle 12:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment Where do you see (significant) CA? I think the slight purple fringe at the bird's beak could be part of its real color. Johannes Robalotoff 13:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
That could very well be the case.--Peulle 01:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment If species is given and rare maybe a valuable image. --GPSLeo 20:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Pop_view_of_a_corner_in_Calle_Lardoni_Venice.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Pop view of Corte Lardoni and the belltower of the Angelo San Raffaele church in Venice --Moroder 17:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Interesting contrast, hard colours, quality high enough for Q1   Support --Michielverbeek 18:11, 18 July 2018 (UT}
  • {{o}} Sorry, strong chromatic noise (see note). Oversaturated IMO. Noised sky. Not QI for me--Lmbuga 18:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support ok --Sandro Halank 13:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done NR --Moroder 14:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Better now. Thamks --Lmbuga 10:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 13:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Start_am_Mittag.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Start am Mittag, See am Goldberg, 63150 Heusenstamm By User:Mathias Mauer --Ralf Roletschek 06:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   OpposeNot sharped, not focused, slight motion blurring and posterization. --GerifalteDelSabana 06:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   SupportBut for me it's good enough. Tournasol7 07:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per GerifalteDelSabana --Sandro Halank 13:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The filename must be improved. --XRay 05:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality-wise close to QI but I'm not quite sure, and the file name/description are meaningless.--Peulle 12:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment With species in the filename a good QI. --GPSLeo 20:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Sankt_Tönis,_die_Pfarrkirche_Sankt_Cornelius_Dm46_IMG_3064_2018-05-06_11.26.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Sankt Tönis-NRW, church: die Pfarrkirche Sankt Cornelius --Michielverbeek 06:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose It need a perspective correction, Tournasol7 07:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Tournasol7. Johannes Robalotoff 11:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The right is leaning in.--Peulle 12:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Tournasol7. --Fischer.H 15:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Dragonfly_0.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Dragonfly resting on a branch--Sathya K Selvam 04:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough. Sorry. --Ermell 06:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. It is sharp enough to see individual veins and some hair, so I feel that it is good enough for the type of shot. --GerifalteDelSabana 03:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell --Sandro Halank 11:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose to many unsharp areas, --Fischer.H 15:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The DoF is too shallow.--Peulle 12:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The important areas are sharp. --GPSLeo 20:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Burg_Landshut_jun_2018_(4).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination The castle Burg Landshut in Bernkastel-Kues.--Peulle 23:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough, perhaps because of the haze --Daniel Case 17:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I think I'd like to get some more input on this one, though: considering the camera is 2,9 km away from the target and that we can still see individual stones in the walls despite the slight haze, I'm hard pressed to find anything really technically wrong with it. I have a feeling that this is about as good a long-shot it's possible to get on a hazy day. What do we think, people?--Peulle 19:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good motive, but unfortunately for me no QI. --Fischer.H 11:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Somewhat soft probably due to haze, but "good enough". "De-hazing" would give unnatural colours. --Smial 09:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • weak   Support, per Smial --Sandro Halank 09:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The blue haze in the air should not exist in a quality image. The positive reviews surprise me. -- Spurzem 20:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Smial. I've tried something of the same concept in the past, but it's so hazy here, "dust and dander" is rated on "extreme", haha... --GerifalteDelSabana 06:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I'm agree whith others. Good picture. Clarity would be better. es: Aumentando la claridad el problema se reduce ---Lmbuga 17:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
New retouched image: File:Burg Landshut jun 2018 (4 retouched).jpg. I think that it's better and QI like the other one--Lmbuga 17:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  Comment Very nice rework, because it preserves some of the haze and did not increase color saturation too much. Now it is up to peulle, if he wants to withdraw the original and accept the rework? I do not think both versions of the very same image should be QI. --Smial 12:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what was done to that new image. If it's better, though, why not simply re-upload it as a new version? This is Commons after all.--Peulle 20:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The author of the two photos is @Peulle:. If he wants to upload the second over the first, and delete the one that I have uploaded, there is no problem. (@Smial:)--Lmbuga 11:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
If someone wants to upload the new version over the old one, I have no problem with that.--Peulle 12:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Sun 15 Jul → Mon 23 Jul
Mon 16 Jul → Tue 24 Jul
Tue 17 Jul → Wed 25 Jul
Wed 18 Jul → Thu 26 Jul
Thu 19 Jul → Fri 27 Jul
Fri 20 Jul → Sat 28 Jul
Sat 21 Jul → Sun 29 Jul
Sun 22 Jul → Mon 30 Jul
Mon 23 Jul → Tue 31 Jul