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 • ‎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.

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 February 22 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

--Biso 07:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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]] 21:25, 22 February 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.

February 22, 2018Edit

February 21, 2018Edit

February 20, 2018Edit

February 19, 2018Edit

February 18, 2018Edit

February 17, 2018Edit

February 16, 2018Edit

February 15, 2018Edit

February 14, 2018Edit

February 12, 2018Edit

February 6, 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:Würgau_Bergrennen2017_Sylva_Fury_0138.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Sylva Fury at the mountain race in Würgau 2017 --Ermell 07:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --GT1976 07:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Car and background very distorted; disturbing shadow. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 12:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The picture does not give any idea what the car looks like in reality. -- Spurzem 08:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Spurzem.--Peulle 09:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Altamura_BW_2016-10-15_15-20-42_2.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Italy, Altamura, Santa Maria Assunta cathedral --Berthold Werner 12:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Image has too small resolution and most of all sharpness is not so good. --Halavar 14:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support. Very good image of an impressive work of art. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 10:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree with Halavar. At this file size, I'd expect more sharpness. -- Ikan Kekek 05:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  Question Are we here in Super Featured Pictures Candidates or in QI? -- Spurzem 08:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
We're judging a small, unsharp photo in QI. If it were nominated to FP, it would be rejected by everyone out of hand for having bad crops as well as the other problems. Here, we consider whether it might have good enough photographic quality. -- Ikan Kekek 18:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No way this is a QI according to 2016 standards. Maybe 1999 standards. In 2016, any smartphone can do this.--Peulle 10:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  Comment I can only wonder about many judgements, both about some positives and about negatives. Apparently QIC is on the way to where Wikipedia KEB went for a long time, that hardly anyone will present pictures. It does not help to say that we no longer have 1999 but 2016. Because not everyone can buy every year a new camera equipment for 10,000 euros or more, just to get a few pixels more for QI. -- Spurzem 12:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  Comment When one person disagrees with you, perhaps you are not swayed. When three people do, perhaps you should start to think about whether it is you who are in the wrong. The Guidelines clearly say that standards increase with time, and while we can't expect professional quality, we shall certainly have to raise our standards as time passes. --Peulle 14:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Obviously meanwhile you expect much more than a high professional quality. -- Spurzem 17:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Rubbish.--Peulle 20:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 10:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:EstacionCamet-0014-3.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Building in Camet train station, railway Roca --Ezarate 20:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. --Bijay chaurasia 17:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review but can you specify the issues? --Ezarate 20:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilted, might perhaps need a perspective correction, too, CAs at least on the trees. I would crop a bit of the sky, too. --Basotxerri 16:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 16:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:GKB_Kaiserwald_01.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Railroad track in Styria --Clemens Stockner 11:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --GT1976 13:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but I disagree: the image is tilted or needs a perspective correction, check the verticals of the buildings. --Basotxerri 16:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 16:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Alt_Duvenstedt_Mühle_001.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Mühle in Alt Duvenstedt im Kreis Rendsburg-Eckernförde in Schleswig-Holstein --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 12:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 15:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too blue! --RaboKarbakian 15:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment It´s not blueish and not to warm. If some one wanna critize, then it´s to bright. Pls Check the time stamp, 15 Minutes later it´s real dark, because night dew at a winter day.(Frozen Times) I see no sense to drift every image to a sunny High-Noon Level. Looks like the audience wanna see more tombs and toilet rooms from my side, I added one todayː-D With the hard job to take a pic from ugly but sensefull places with open apperture. Daily Pic is warmed up, over 2200K, no reality but North Side--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 06:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC).
  •   Support per photographer's explanation. -- Ikan Kekek 06:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 06:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:ICE-Baustelle-Breitengüßbach-280216-2288435PS.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Fendt 936 Vario Tractor --Ermell 07:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Very special shot! Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 07:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Unrealistic distorted. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jacek Halicki 09:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMO for a QI too distorted but I would appreciate more opinions. --Basotxerri 09:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unrealistisch, bei Fahrzeugen unangebracht. --Ralf Roleček 11:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • weak  Support More about the really strong crop. Mich stört die dynamische Überdramatisierung der dominanten Reifen bei einem Traktor weniger, bei einem Panzer müsste man es sehen. Bei einem Cabrio oder PKW wäre es für mich ein NoGo--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 11:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. The distorsion is due to the choice of the lens (wide angle). I don't think it is due due to a post-treatment -- PJDespa 22:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  Comment Das Foto vermittelt den Eindruck, als seien die Vorderräder dieses Traktors wesentlich größer als die Hinterräder, und solche Verfälschungen der Wirklichkeit können oder sollten nach meiner Meinung nicht Sinn von QI sein. Wenn das völlig verzerrte Bild „Big Tire“ hieße, würde ich mich vielleicht damit „anfreunden“, aber wirklich nur vielleicht. Bitte nichts für ungut. -- Spurzem 12:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment If you stand with the wide angle directly in front of it, you can see this effect but that is nothing new. In this case I wanted to exaggerate the strength of the machine, which in my opinion fits quite well here. Photos are rarely realistic.--Ermell 20:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Alles schön und gut; den Effekt sehr kurzer Brennweiten kenne ich auch. Aber Julius Weitmann zum Beispiel, einer der größten Motorsportfotografen, lehnte es zum Beispiel ab, ein Auto mit weniger als der Normalbrennweite zu fotografieren. In Deinem Bild des Fend 936 Vario wirkt das Vorderrad nicht nur viel zu groß, sondern es sieht außerdem so aus, als sei die Achse total verzogen. Nimm es mir bitte nicht übel, aber ich verstehe nicht, was mit einem solchen Bild gezeigt werden soll. Gruß -- Spurzem 21:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
ː Irgendwie muss ich da einhaken. Lebt J.Weidmann überhaupt noch? Geht ja nicht mal um ihn, noch weniger um die Arbeiten zu der Zeit, die sicher legendär sind. In Architektur wurden schon von über 250 Jahren Überschnitte (was heute Photoshop ist) gemacht, das war kein Betrug und keine perspektivische Verzerrung. Julius hätte heute so seine Probleme, gerade hier in der QI-Beurteilung bei commons. Es gab damals kaum Objektiv-Profile und keine brauchbaren Ultra-Weitwinkel in der Form (ist auch fast albern, da bei Sport/Reportage unbrauchbar oder zu gefährlich). Alte Gläser (Adlerauge, 45mm pancake) waren und sind immer noch Gestaltung, die Kilometer an Film die als unbrauchbar in die Tonne gewandert sind möchte ich gar nicht aufzählen. Heute erweitern sich die Sichtweisen (gerade bei Weitwinkel) bei Tele hat sich IMO weniger getan, leider nimmt auch die reine Menge massiv inflationär zu. Dabei geht Gestaltung, Umsetzung (sieht man hier leider viel zu deutlich, sprich Lichtführung, Linienführung) unter. Mit einem Super-Angulon wurden auch schon in den 60érn Bilder gemacht, halt als Still (unbewegt) und auf einer optischen Bank.Fast alles Meisterwerkeǃ--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 18:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   weak support mainly per Hans-Jürgen Neubert and Ermell's explanation of his intention. Rhododendrites 07:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Johann Jaritz. By the way, I didn't understand the above comments in German. I'm not speaking French here, I make the effort to translate in English, sometimes by using online translators, translate.google.com for example. But I won't translate the above comments, since I don't want to do that for all the languages on Earth. Regards -- Basile Morin 11:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Basile Morin:Translation: In the picture of the Fend 936 Vario, the front wheel not only looks much too big, but it also looks like the axle is completely distorted. Please do not mind me, but I do not understand what should be shown with such a picture. -- Spurzem 12:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Basile Morin:German´s are eggheads and krauts, means we wanna fight inside:-D Like the sports-men your family send him to home - That´s a farmer cabrio, some wanna have a look like a tank -and we are jealous not to invest in Conti(-nental) for two decades before. Sorry for my british sense of humor ;-)-- --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 18:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support good quality, visually very successful, IMO a good use of a wide angle --Christian Ferrer 17:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Funny view. Photos of buildings or cars or people would be declined with such distortions. Inappropriate use of wide angle lens. --Smial 20:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 14:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Wed 14 Feb → Thu 22 Feb
Thu 15 Feb → Fri 23 Feb
Fri 16 Feb → Sat 24 Feb
Sat 17 Feb → Sun 25 Feb
Sun 18 Feb → Mon 26 Feb
Mon 19 Feb → Tue 27 Feb
Tue 20 Feb → Wed 28 Feb
Wed 21 Feb → Thu 01 Mar
Thu 22 Feb → Fri 02 Mar