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 March 2022.
  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 March 2022.
  • 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 19 2022 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]] 16:16, 19 March 2022 (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


March 19, 2022[edit]

March 18, 2022[edit]

March 17, 2022[edit]

March 16, 2022[edit]

March 15, 2022[edit]

March 14, 2022[edit]

March 13, 2022[edit]

March 12, 2022[edit]

March 11, 2022[edit]

March 9, 2022[edit]

March 8, 2022[edit]

March 7, 2022[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:Sri_Lankan_leopard_(Panthera_pardus_kotiya)_male.jpg[edit]

Sri Lankan leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya) male.jpg

  • Nomination Sri Lankan leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya) male --Charlesjsharp 12:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting is poor. The leopard is largely obscured by bushes. The CAT should be "Category:Panthera pardus in Yala National Park". This CAT has several better, high res images. --Tagooty 02:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Citroen_C-Elysee,_Zadar_(P1080811).jpg[edit]

Citroen C-Elysee, Zadar (P1080811).jpg

  • Nomination Citroen C-Elysée in Zadar, Croatia --MB-one 13:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
    Needs a slight perspective correction (the window bars on the bottom right should probably be vertical) --Trougnouf 22:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --MB-one 18:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Trougnouf 19:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMHO with half the car in shade, the composition is not QI. --GRDN711 23:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per GRDN711. --Fischer.H 10:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:20181208_JMSDF_Lockheed_P-3_Orion_landing_Naha_Air_Show_2018-47.jpg[edit]

20181208 JMSDF Lockheed P-3 Orion landing Naha Air Show 2018-47.jpg

  • Nomination A JMSDF P-3 Orion landing at the Naha Airport. --Balon Greyjoy 08:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Trougnouf 16:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Appears under-exposed to me but open to other opinions in CR. --GRDN711 23:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sri_Lankan_leopard_(Panthera_pardus_kotiya)_female_5.jpg[edit]

Sri Lankan leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya) female 5.jpg

  • Nomination Sri Lankan leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya) female --Charlesjsharp 12:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. There is too much covered of the Leopard for my taste. Let's see what other users say. --Steindy 22:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)This was a comment for the wrong photo, sorry! Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 10:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Are you serious, Steindy? Very little of the view of the leopard is blocked. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 05:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sri_Lankan_leopard_(Panthera_pardus_kotiya)_female_3.jpg[edit]

Sri Lankan leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya) female 3.jpg

  • Nomination Sri Lankan leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya) female --Charlesjsharp 12:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. There is too much covered of the Leopard for my taste. Let's see what other users say. --Steindy 22:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The only thing that really matters is that we see her face, though we also see her tail, etc. I don't get voting against this. What a look from her! -- Ikan Kekek 05:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revenge vote from Steindy who has no understanding how challenging this sort of image is. Unfortunately, leopard do not prowl on the football pitches of Austria. Charlesjsharp 11:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good for such challenging photo. --Nefronus 10:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:002_2015_04_23_Feuerwehr_und_Feuerwehrbedarf.jpg[edit]

002 2015 04 23 Feuerwehr und Feuerwehrbedarf.jpg

  • Nomination Historical fire engine from Ahrens-Fox (USA, Cincinnati, Ohio)
    --F. Riedelio 16:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tire cropped --Charlesjsharp 10:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree! Outstanding photo. Everyone can imagine what the rest of the tire looks like. --Steindy 21:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yeah, fine picture to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:08277_-_Adult_Brown_booby_in_flight_-_(sula_leucogaster_leucogaster).jpg[edit]

08277 - Adult Brown booby in flight - (sula leucogaster leucogaster).jpg

  • Nomination Adult brown booby in flight [sula leucogaster leucogaster] scanning the sea for preyI --Virtual-Pano 22:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very noisy. --Junior Jumper 13:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Let's get other opinions --Virtual-Pano 13:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A good large image. Noisy, but I think that NR will correct the problem. --Tagooty 16:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    ✓ Done new version uploaded, thanks for pointing the flaw out --Virtual-Pano 20:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit soft but given the large resolution of the image, it is ok for QI. --Tagooty 02:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed by denoising. --Smial 10:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment completly reprocessed file uploaded --Virtual-Pano 13:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The reprocessed file is good, I continue my support! --Tagooty 03:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These kinds of photos are hard, but nothing is sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 05:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 05:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:At_Orient_Point,_Long_Island_2018_13.jpg[edit]

At Orient Point, Long Island 2018 13.jpg

  • Nomination Cape Henlopen, off Orient Point, Suffolk County --Mike Peel 22:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry: not sharp enough for QI, horizon tilt to the right, disturbing dolphins. --F. Riedelio 09:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    @F. Riedelio: Would you mind elaborating please? I've tweaked the horizon - but only by 0.2°, there's land on the right. Which parts aren't sharp? Where are the dolphins? Thanks. Mike Peel 21:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    [reply]
@Mike Peel: The horizon is straight now. The right third of the image is blurred (cars). The dolphins are in the foreground. --F. Riedelio 08:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't heard that use of the word 'dolphin' before, was looking at the water to see if I'd missed the animals somehow! It looks sufficiently sharp to me? But if not, fair enough. Thanks. Mike Peel 17:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per F. Riedelio. --Fischer.H 10:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Steindy 19:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:At_La_Palma_2021_1793.jpg[edit]

At La Palma 2021 1793.jpg

  • Nomination Eclectus roratus in La Palma --Mike Peel 21:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    borderline; focus has missed the eye --Charlesjsharp 10:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Regardig the resolution which allows prints in A3 size or larger without sharpness issues the image is by far good enough as QI. Composition probably not absolutely perfect, but very nice lighting, colours appear realistic. --Smial 09:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks under-exposed with low depth of field. --GRDN711 01:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Steindy 14:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hamburg,Wikipedia_Ahoi,_Barkassenfahrt_NIK_6834.jpg[edit]

Hamburg,Wikipedia Ahoi, Barkassenfahrt NIK 6834.jpg

  • Nomination Ein Schubschiff mit absenkbarem Steuerhaus. --Nightflyer 19:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It needs a perspective correction --Michielverbeek 20:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    Different previews at the same time, so to CR --Michielverbeek 22:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, that are one photo. Please mark the QR. Gruss --Nightflyer 22:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Michielverbeek: Gruss --Nightflyer 11:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry! I think the choice of subject is bad. It could certainly have been avoided that the cranes were cut off on the left and right. Also, I don't think the coordinates are correct. --Steindy 14:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Steindy: Take an look on this picture (for Coordinates). Gruss --Nightflyer 18:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Michielverbeek. --Trougnouf 14:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Trougnouf: Please mark the QR. Gruss --Nightflyer 18:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]