Commons:Quality images candidates


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 exclude vector graphics (SVG) and images computer generated and constructed using a free licensed source code available in the image 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 March 26 2017 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]] 01:55, 26 March 2017 (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.
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

March 25, 2017Edit

March 24, 2017Edit

March 23, 2017Edit

March 22, 2017Edit

March 21, 2017Edit

March 19, 2017Edit

March 18, 2017Edit

March 17, 2017Edit

March 16, 2017Edit

March 15, 2017Edit

March 14, 2017Edit

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:Swastika_Mukherjee_-_Kolkata_2015-10-10_5787.JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination Swastika Mukhopadhyay during the Apeejay Bangla Sahitya Utsab. By User:Gangulybiswarup --Bodhisattwa 15:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Too noisy, loss of details because of noise reduction, not a QI for me, sorry. --Basotxerri 16:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. It is noisy indeed but nevertheless an excellent photo for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Much noise and half the face is unsharp, a big no vote from me.--Peulle 21:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 23:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle --Sandro Halank 09:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 09:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_position_of_Charaxes_bernardus_Fabricius,_1793_–_Tawny_Rajah_(2).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Open wing of Charaxes bernardus Fabricius, 1793 – Tawny Rajah. By User:Tamaghna Sengupta --Bodhisattwa 10:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality -- Spurzem 11:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Below 2 megapixels. --A.Savin 12:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Below 2 megapixels.--Peulle 14:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Spurzem, why are you attempting to promote images that are below the minimum size? In this case, it was completely obvious just by giving a cursory look at the dimensions; you didn't even have any reason to resort to a calculator. Please stop. -- Ikan Kekek 23:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think he just oversaw it, I've already made the same mistake, we shouldn't worry about it. --Basotxerri 09:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 09:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_position_of_Graphium_antiphates,_Cramer,_1775_–_Five-bar_Swordtail_WLB.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination [edit][edit] Close wing position of Graphium antiphates, Cramer, 1775 – Five-bar Swordtail WLB. By User:Sayan911 --Bodhisattwa 10:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality -- Spurzem 11:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed. Far from QI --A.Savin 12:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No, no, that isn't. --Basotxerri 09:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others.--Peulle 13:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 09:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_position_of_Papilio_paris,_Linnaeus,_1758_–_Paris_Peacock_WLB.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination [edit][edit] Close wing position of Papilio paris, Linnaeus, 1758 – Paris Peacock WLB. By User:Sayan911 --Bodhisattwa 10:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality -- Spurzem 11:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp and overprocessed. --A.Savin 12:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ... and that isn't either... --Basotxerri 09:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin --Sandro Halank 09:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others.--Peulle 13:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 09:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-02-24_Miriam_Kastlunger_by_Sandro_Halank.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Miriam Kastlunger beim Nationencup-Rennen der Frauen in Altenberg 2017 --Sandro Halank 22:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality -- Spurzem 23:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Below 2 megapixels --A.Savin 00:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Yep, the minimum size is not optional. -- Ikan Kekek 00:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Under the limit. Spurzem must have missed it. --Peulle 12:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I hope you're right that he's just missing it, repeatedly, and not willfully ignoring it. -- Ikan Kekek 23:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

File:16-09-01-Rīgas_Starptautiskā_Lidosta-RR2_4568.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Beladung eines Airbus A320-200 der Lufthansa am Flugplatz RigaLatviešu: Rīgas Starptautiskā Lidosta --Ralf Roletschek 14:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Missing identification of the aircraft. --A.Savin 15:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I see no reason to decline. The image is O.K. for me. -- Spurzem 20:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Inadequate categorization, per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek 05:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done I know, maybe I shouldn't do so because Ralf should know about categorisation but on this rainy day I've got the two minutes to fix it. --Basotxerri 10:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri 10:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine now. Thanks to Basotxerri.--Peulle 13:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 15:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 15:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Sanchi_Stupa_'TORANAS'_The_Entry_Gate4.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination This is a photo of ASI monument number --Suyash.dwivedi 16:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but there are chromatic aberrations. --A.Savin 15:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The CAs are negligible for me. -- Spurzem 11:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose negligible?? Strong CA. --Carschten 12:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    Negligible for Spurzem are my reviews, that's for sure and meanwhile a well-known old hut. --A.Savin 12:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@A.Savin: I don't like such imputations. -- Spurzem 12:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
de:WP:RTL. --A.Savin 13:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose strong CAs, not a QI to me. --Sandro Halank 09:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I've seen worse, but since CA are so easy to fix, I'll vote oppose until it's done.--Peulle 13:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 09:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Colonna_di_San_Marco_e_San_Teodoro_piazzetta_San_Marco_Venezia.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination View of theColonna del Leone di San Marco and the Colonna di San Teodoro columns with the Biblioteca Marciana on the Piazzetta San Marco square in Venice --Moroder 07:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment The tops of the columns look distorted, especially the right one. I'm not sure that can be fixed but I'll give you a chance to have a look at it.--Peulle 08:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment That comes with the perspective correction. There is no way to do it differently.
  •   Done Thanks. I've tried a bit of an audacious operation. If you like I can reverse to a version without perspective correction. Cheers --Moroder 08:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I see what you did there - there is now a straight line stitching error in the middle of the image. Honestly, this is really hard; I think possibly unfixable and those colums really are important since they're the subject. That means   Oppose, but I would also really like to hear what other reviewers have to say about it. Going CR for more input from our fellows.--Peulle 10:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Fixed the stitching error. Thanks for the hint --Moroder 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support IMHO, this image has good quality. As I was several times in Venice, I know how hard it is, to get some photos of the two columns without perspective distortion. And this picture is really good. -- Johann Jaritz 17:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me--Ermell 20:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:17-02-15-Lietadlá_Ministerstva_vnútra_slovenské_republiky-RR2_7932.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Lietadlá Ministerstva vnútra slovenské republiky --Ralf Roletschek 23:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Nice composition, subject sits in focus, nice lighting. Very acceptable grain. --Gorlingor 00:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Another crop of the same picture is already QI. --A.Savin 02:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - As I recall, when you declined a bunch of similar photos of a bird in India, it was clearly established in CR that similarity to other photos is not a usable criterion for declining a QI nomination. That being the case, this is an image of good quality, and therefore, I support. -- Ikan Kekek 02:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not just a similar photo, this is same photo. --A.Savin 14:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Grain acceptable for these lighting conditions. As for multiple versions of images, the Guidelines separate between FP and QI: "Normally there should never be two featured pictures that are just different versions of the same image, (...) There is no restriction on the number of similar quality images (...)"--Peulle 07:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info this are different pictures, see EXIF (F8F0C93348793E571F97A10E98885FB2; 15. Feb. 2017, 17:41:10 / EE9565CFEF0A3FE4286AA3B25A86C823; 15. Feb. 2017, 17:41:09) In background branches left, window right are different - both photos have the full pixel number in width (4288) --Ralf Roletschek 07:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment So, both pictures were taken within 1 second, which means that serial shooting was used. For this kind of motif, I don't understand the real need of serial shooting; albeit I myself occasioinally use it for dynamic motives, e.g. this photo or this one were parts of serial shootings, each are best ones of their series of six, seven, eight,... (my camera can up to ten) shots taken within one second. With that said, serial shooting is indeed a good tool for many dynamic motives to choose the best managed shot. But when someone makes serial shooting of a building, a sculpture, a parking vehicle (like here), so that all photos are actually nothing but duplicates, and then uploads them all, and then wants them all to become QI, this may only have one sense: QI as self-purpose, just to push the QI count to have a babel on one's userpage with a claim like "This user has uploaded 37,421 Quality images on Commons". Anyone who supports such behaviour, apparently hasn't understood what QI/FP is for. One more reason for me to abandon any participation in QIC, just like I have abandoned participating on VIC years ago.. --A.Savin 00:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to add that this photo is insufficiently categorized. This is definitely in contrary with Image guidelines. --A.Savin 00:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The model of plane should be mentioned and categorized, if possible. But your other objection seems to amount to a proposal to change QI rules, based on previous and current discussion. If so, why don't you propose a clear rules change on the talk page? -- Ikan Kekek 04:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand the arguments of A.Savin. I think we have to discuss this. Because this i withdraw at this point? --Ralf Roletschek 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Maserati_BW_2016-04-30_13-55-31.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Maserati 3500 GT Spyder --Berthold Werner 18:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Tilted CCW, could you correct it, please? --Basotxerri 19:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose  Not done after 8 days--Michielverbeek 08:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  Done now it's done ;-) --Berthold Werner 18:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK now, thank you! --Basotxerri 16:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The persons in behind should not be there but the car is o.k.--Ermell 07:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support علاء 08:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support QI to me.--Sandro Halank 09:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 09:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)Edit

Sat 18 Mar → Sun 26 Mar
Sun 19 Mar → Mon 27 Mar
Mon 20 Mar → Tue 28 Mar
Tue 21 Mar → Wed 29 Mar
Wed 22 Mar → Thu 30 Mar
Thu 23 Mar → Fri 31 Mar
Fri 24 Mar → Sat 01 Apr
Sat 25 Mar → Sun 02 Apr
Sun 26 Mar → Mon 03 Apr