Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask 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]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

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 unless the photographer is a Commons user. (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 November 2024.
  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 November 2024.
  • 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 November 21 2024 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]] 13:31, 21 November 2024 (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
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


November 21, 2024

[edit]

November 20, 2024

[edit]

November 19, 2024

[edit]

November 18, 2024

[edit]

November 17, 2024

[edit]

November 16, 2024

[edit]

November 15, 2024

[edit]

November 14, 2024

[edit]

November 13, 2024

[edit]

November 12, 2024

[edit]

November 11, 2024

[edit]

November 10, 2024

[edit]

November 09, 2024

[edit]

November 08, 2024

[edit]

November 04, 2024

[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  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".



File:Woman_with_hat_in_red_dress,_North_Beach_SF.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Woman in a red dress in North Beach, San Francisco --Radomianin 21:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but in my opinion it's unclear what is this picture about. --Vsatinet 19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your objection. To answer your question, the photo belongs to the genre of street photography. But please specify your reason for rejection, what technical issues does the photo have? Best regards, --Radomianin 20:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your point of view. As I understand it, you are referring to documentary photography, which often overlaps with street photography. Because street photography shows not only events, but also scenes, like in this case. However, if you look at the appropriate category, it is clear that the term street photography is broad and this shot falls into that category. As for the quality of the image, I am not sure that your objection can be accepted as a reason for rejection. This forum is only about the technical aspects of an image. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my poor English, but by "events" I meant something interesting, that is, "scenes" too. I refer on street photography as on something in which you can find a plot or point of view, not as any photo taken on street. Here I don't see a scene, but only women's back. It seems to me that this picture could have been interesting, for example, with a different crop - if the woman's figure in bright clothes contrasted with the faded colors of the street. As for technical aspects - in my opinion, frame construction and choice of plans is a very important technical aspect of photography (as Commons:Image guidelines says). But if criteria of QI are only right exposition, enough sharp, сorrect transfer of perspective and so on - let's it be so. Vsatinet 11:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
⦁ Thank you for expressing your opinion. Your English is good and I understand you, everything is fine. If we are talking about the composition of the image, I would like to give my view: As described in the retouching template on the file page, I deliberately toned down the saturation of the surroundings to give more emphasis to the woman in the eye-catching red dress. On the right there is a red wall and on the left a red car, whose dominance I wanted to reduce. I also cropped the picture according to the rule of thirds, so that the viewer's gaze coincides with hers. During our stay in San Francisco, I photographed many street scenes, such as street musicians or a shoeshine man. I think this spontaneous snapshot during our time in SF is my best, not only regarding composition and light, but also concerning non-identifiability, which for me is an important aspect of not violating her privacy in terms of ethical responsibility. Best regards, --Radomianin 12:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is good, focus is good, composition is good for the intention. Not everybody will find this scene interesting, but IMO that is not relevant for QI. --Plozessor 14:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support on the lines of Plozessor. The quality is good, light and colours are very good, IMHO also the subject of the photo is clear (focus and depth of field clearly emphasize the woman) and the composition is fitting. I have often seen similar photos subsumed under “street photography”, but there is no need at all to quarrel over this classification: the “Quality image” badge is independent from the photographic genre. – Aristeas 15:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The quality of this shot is good and I don't see any reason to reject this image. --Frank Schulenburg 19:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice image, good composition and good quality -- Spurzem 20:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful and well done photo. I wish it also could be FP though I doubt it is possible. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 02:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't have a problem with the composition, really, but I don't like that the image appears to have been downsized.--Peulle 07:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: Thank you for your objection, which I understand. However, the image was not reduced in size, but cropped to get the current composition. Best, --Radomianin 08:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me also --Jakubhal 07:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 8 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Radomianin 07:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Espolon_Tequila_Blanco_01.tif

[edit]

  • Nomination Espolon Tequila Blanco crafted at the acclaimed San Nicolas distillery in the Los Altos region of Jalisco Espolon Blanco. --Indrajitdas 13:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Underexposed, tif-file. You should use white canvas background. --Kallerna 17:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • There is any such Wiki rules that I should have use white canvas? --Indrajitdas 14:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Reset to "/Discuss". Please do not revert to "/Nomination" once there is a vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion the background is better than white. -- Spurzem 20:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Depth of field could be greater, but the most interesting label is sharp. There are no rules against other file formats than JPEG. The background is fine for me --Jakubhal 07:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavorable lighting and unsuitable background with unattractive color. The use of a wide-angle lens is also the wrong choice for such objects. Definitely not a QI for me. --Smial 11:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed. -- Rijuroy89 06:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Radomianin 07:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Carroll_Gartin_Justice_Building,_November_2024.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Carroll Gartin Justice Building in Jackson, Mississippi. --Ktkvtsh 20:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Perspective correction needed --Екатерина Борисова 02:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Could someone help me with that? I'm not sure how --Ktkvtsh 02:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Paris_20e_-_Cimetière_du_Père_Lachaise_-_Tombe_de_Consuelo_Fould_-_La_Conscience_terrassant_le_Vice_et_l'Injustice.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Conscience overcoming Vice and Injustice --Romainbehar 20:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose CA's along the contour of the statues (especially the upper hand) --Екатерина Борисова 02:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Updated image removing aberration, also lightened globally --Romainbehar 14:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand what's going on here. I did not decline this image, I just made a comment, and I don't know who turned "Comment" into "Oppose". And anyway, I think the new version looks OK. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 21:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Maison_Gaubert_in_Villefranche-de-Rouergue.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Maison Gaubert in Villefranche-de-Rouergue (by Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 15:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Imo the corner is too sharp --Michielverbeek 19:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 13:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Top appears to bulge out. PC needed. --Tagooty 00:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Oranienbaum_St._Petersburg_Russia_02.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Lower Garden, Oranienbaum Park (by Ninaras) --FBilula 12:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 12:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated. --Kallerna 14:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture, saturation within acceptable range for me. --Plozessor 09:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I saw this place IRL many times, and in sunny summer day it really looks something like that. Colours are obviously improved here, but not that much. Good image. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very strong contrast and probably downscaled, but all in all good quality and representative view. – Aristeas 15:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality Юрий Д.К. 08:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 12:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Japan_pavilion_of_Grand_Menshikov_Palace,_Oranienbaum_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Japan pavilion of Grand Menshikov Palace, Oranienbaum (by Pavlikhin) --FBilula 12:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Noisy, unsharp even on thumbnail size. --Kallerna 14:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I see no issue with sharpness here, and it's not so much noisy. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 01:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is ok. Probably Kallerna had a browser issue. --Plozessor 07:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good! Юрий Д.К. 03:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 12:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

File:S-charl,_Clemgia_zijrivier_van_de_Inn._12-10-2024._(d.j.b)_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination S-charl, rapids in the mountain stream Clemgia, a tributary of the Inn.
    --Famberhorst 05:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I don't think these are natural colors and the water looks like plastic due to intensive processing IMO. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 01:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see anything wrong here. The water looks like it does due to (probably intentional) long exposure. --Plozessor 05:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Just want to clarify my objection. This picture looks more like a wallpaper generated by AI than a natural landscape. It seems ugly and unnatural to me. No offense to the photographer, of course. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed and partly noisy. --Smial 18:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: The photo was taken with a long exposure time (8 sec.) on purpose. This was done with a gray filter. This will make the water look smooth. That was the intention. I did not sharpen the photo any more.--Famberhorst 18:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support With 8 s exposure time for a fast flowing alpine river the water looks as it looks like here. Colors are ok, too. --Zinnmann 18:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 23:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rbrechko 12:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 19:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Colours look fine and the noise is on a very low level. – Aristeas 15:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Great Image Good quality --Tzim78 13:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 9 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   – Radomianin 07:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 13 Nov → Thu 21 Nov
  • Thu 14 Nov → Fri 22 Nov
  • Fri 15 Nov → Sat 23 Nov
  • Sat 16 Nov → Sun 24 Nov
  • Sun 17 Nov → Mon 25 Nov
  • Mon 18 Nov → Tue 26 Nov
  • Tue 19 Nov → Wed 27 Nov
  • Wed 20 Nov → Thu 28 Nov
  • Thu 21 Nov → Fri 29 Nov