Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
Skip to nominations
Quality images logo.svg

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.

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]

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 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 December 2021.
  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 December 2021.
  • 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 December 25 2021 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]] 09:41, 25 December 2021 (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


December 25, 2021[edit]

December 24, 2021[edit]

December 23, 2021[edit]

December 22, 2021[edit]

December 21, 2021[edit]

December 20, 2021[edit]

December 19, 2021[edit]

December 18, 2021[edit]

December 17, 2021[edit]

December 15, 2021[edit]

December 14, 2021[edit]

December 13, 2021[edit]

December 11, 2021[edit]

December 9, 2021[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 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 Review[edit]

File:Bosque_Encantado,_Parque_nacional_de_Garajonay,_La_Gomera,_España,_2012-12-14,_DD_12.jpg[edit]

Bosque Encantado, Parque nacional de Garajonay, La Gomera, España, 2012-12-14, DD 12.jpg

  • Nomination Enchanted Forest, Garajonay National Park, La Gomera, Spain --Poco a poco 06:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry: The corners are blurred. --F. Riedelio 07:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    I see, ok, no problem, I ✓ cropped the corners --Poco a poco 12:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine corners, the motif in between, too. --Palauenc05 19:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Open_wing_Basking_of_Dichorragia_nesimachus_(Doyère,_1840)_–_Constable_(Male)_WLB_IMG_3082.jpg[edit]

Open wing Basking of Dichorragia nesimachus (Doyère, 1840) – Constable (Male) WLB IMG 3082.jpg

  • Nomination Open wing Basking of Dichorragia nesimachus (Doyère, 1840) – Constable (Male) (by Sandipoutsider) --Atudu 14:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK quality. --Charlesjsharp 16:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. too blurred even at 70% -- Alvesgaspar 17:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 11:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Close_wing_mud_puddling_activity_of_Papilio_polytes_Linnaeus,_1758_–_Common_Mormon.jpg[edit]

Close wing mud puddling activity of Papilio polytes Linnaeus, 1758 – Common Mormon.jpg

  • Nomination Close wing mud puddling activity of Papilio polytes Linnaeus, 1758 – Common Mormon.jpg (by Aniruddha97350) --Atudu 13:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 13:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose something wrong with the background --Charlesjsharp 16:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree, something very wrong the image. Agressibe denoising? -- Alvesgaspar 17:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 07:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overcooked --Poco a poco 18:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Close_wing_Philomela_form_of_Pareronia_hippia_(Fabricius,_1787)_–_Indian_Wanderer.jpg[edit]

Close wing Philomela form of Pareronia hippia (Fabricius, 1787) – Indian Wanderer.jpg

  • Nomination Close wing Philomela form of Pareronia hippia (Fabricius, 1787) – Indian Wanderer.jpg (by Aniruddha97350) --Atudu 13:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 13:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks to be in focus, but there is very little definition. May be limitation of camera/lens. --Charlesjsharp 16:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Something very wrong the image. Agressibe denoising? -- Alvesgaspar 17:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 11:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ravenna_-_Battistero_Neoniana.jpg[edit]

Ravenna - Battistero Neoniana.jpg

  • Nomination Ravenna - Battistero Neoniana --Imehling 06:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit dark, but good for me. --Sebring12Hrs 18:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's not only dark in the shadows, the verticals are not OK. --Augustgeyler 03:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not seeing what's wrong with the verticals. Could you please explain? The shadows are somewhat noisy, though. -- Ikan Kekek 07:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps I am wrong, but for me it looks like the outer verticals are leaning in. So a small perspective correction might help there. --Augustgeyler 11:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks. Looks normal to me, normal foreshortening or whatever. A little noise reduction in the shadows might be good, but I think this is acceptable for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 16:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 16:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferrari_250_LM_1963_-_Museo_Ferrari.jpg[edit]

Ferrari 250 LM 1963 - Museo Ferrari.jpg

  • Nomination Ferrari 250 LM 1963 - Museo Ferrari --Commonists 20:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --V.Boldychev 09:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DoF is too shallow, and there are sharpening artefacts. --A.Savin 14:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, too small Warning icon.png DoF. --Augustgeyler 11:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --August Geyler (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Handorf_Hauptstraße_07_Scheune_005_2021_06_21.jpg[edit]

Handorf Hauptstraße 07 Scheune 005 2021 06 21.jpg

  • Nomination Barn in Handorf (Lower Saxony), view from south --F. Riedelio 08:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strucutreless sky; I don't like it --Hillopo2018 08:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree: The sky is not the subject but the barn. The sky is therefore without structure because it is a closed cloud cover. --F. Riedelio 11:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of the sky, I oppose this for FP... Wait, hold on...Seriously, I don't think this is the place to oppose photos merely because you don't like days with annoying skies. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 12:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zerlegung_einer_ausgebauten_Stahlnietenbrücke_in_Leipzig_Anger-Crottendorf_(Dia).jpg[edit]

Zerlegung einer ausgebauten Stahlnietenbrücke in Leipzig Anger-Crottendorf (Dia).jpg

  • Nomination Oxyacetylene cutting at night to scrap an old railway bridge from 1912 in Leipzig. --Augustgeyler 01:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --The night rainbow 06:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, sorry! The photo has too much noise and too small DOF. It seems to me that this is a scan of a slide or a paper photo. --Steindy 15:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please see the decription at the file! The subject of oxy.-cutting is in focus. So why is there a DoF-Problem? --Augustgeyler 22:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Above 6 MPixels, excellent quality, considering the difficult lighting situation. --Smial 13:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is good enough for film. Striking motif. --Argenberg 12:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is too much noise in the photo. --Fischer.H 18:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An impressive photo. Under these conditions and with this resolution some noise is acceptable --KaiBorgeest 00:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with KaiBorgeest. Impressive shot, and the noise is not disturbing to me. --Lion-hearted85 16:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose is this a quality photo?--Commonists 13:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would hesitate if this were FPC or VIC. But nor in QIC, where the criteria is solely image quality -- Alvesgaspar 21:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This scan of a slide has excellent image quality. -- Smial 13:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. --Tagooty 06:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am wondering about the complaints, there might be to much noise. There is no noise, but grain. And grain of that size is a very typical thing for photographs shot in ISO 100 reversal film. It was developed with standard time. So the grain is the same as it would be at day time. --Augustgeyler 17:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree. Please have a look at the discussion page, "Evaluation of scanned photographs on conventional film material". (I don't know how to use a permalink here) --Smial 10:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me --Christian Ferrer 21:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Disturbing luminance noise. --F. Riedelio 07:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree that, given the source material, this is a good quality image. --Lrkrol 15:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yeriho 12:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 8 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Promote?   --Commonists 13:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Fri 17 Dec → Sat 25 Dec
  • Sat 18 Dec → Sun 26 Dec
  • Sun 19 Dec → Mon 27 Dec
  • Mon 20 Dec → Tue 28 Dec
  • Tue 21 Dec → Wed 29 Dec
  • Wed 22 Dec → Thu 30 Dec
  • Thu 23 Dec → Fri 31 Dec
  • Fri 24 Dec → Sat 01 Jan
  • Sat 25 Dec → Sun 02 Jan