Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 March 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 March 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 March 19 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]] 09:32, 19 March 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


March 19, 2024[edit]

March 18, 2024[edit]

March 17, 2024[edit]

March 16, 2024[edit]

March 15, 2024[edit]

March 14, 2024[edit]

March 13, 2024[edit]

March 12, 2024[edit]

March 11, 2024[edit]

March 10, 2024[edit]

March 9, 2024[edit]

March 8, 2024[edit]

March 7, 2024[edit]

March 6, 2024[edit]

March 5, 2024[edit]

March 4, 2024[edit]

March 2, 2024[edit]

February 29, 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:March_2024_in_Seattle,_Washington,_US_-_007.jpg[edit]

File:Stolperstein_2_-_Uerdinger_Straße_25,_Golzheim,_Düsseldorf_-_Gert_&_Hans_Mayer.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stolperstein for Gert & Hans Mayer --Reda Kerbouche 17:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The image is too unsharp / has too few details in my opinion, sorry --PantheraLeo1359531 18:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • other options --Reda Kerbouche 19:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Did PantheraLeo1359531 actually oppose? Otherwise this should not have been moved to discussions. For me the picture is ok, given the high resolution. --Plozessor 05:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Europäische_Wildkatze_im_Wildpark_Schloss_Tambach_8.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Felis silvestris silvestris in Tambach game park --Plozessor 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose cropped feet and something in foreground --Charlesjsharp 20:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Note that QI guidelines do not say "there must be nothing in foreground" but "elements in foreground must not be disturbing". This fraction of the green fence in foreground of the green grass does not seem "disturbing" to me. But let's hear other's opinions. --Plozessor 05:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but for me that fence is disturbing, so I have to oppose it for now. The cat has beautiful details, and I would change my vote if you made a portrait frame cropping off unnecessary sides. I don't mind the missing legs for such a portrait photo. --Jakubhal 20:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Jakubhal and Charlesjsharp: New version, please have a look. --Plozessor 05:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
     Support Thanks, OK for me --Jakubhal 05:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Decorated_Bull_at_Yanamalakuduru_Shivaratri_fest_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bull decorated for Shivaratri at Yanamalakuduru --IM3847 03:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose arm in foreground --Charlesjsharp 20:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Arm is not "in foreground" but behind the cow, seems ok for me. --Plozessor 05:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor --Jakubhal 20:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:St._Alexis_Cathedral,_Samarkand_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination St. Alexis Cathedral, Samarkand, Uzbekistan --Bgag 03:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 04:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tight crop at top --Charlesjsharp 20:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Crop may be tight but IMO not too tight, there's nothing cut off and there's still a stripe of blue sky above the cross. I am more bothered by the lack of overall sharpness, but it's still ok. --Plozessor 05:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Interboot_2023,_Friedrichshafen_(P1120952).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination demonstration of an electric hydrofoil surfboard at Interboot 2023 --MB-one 09:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no demonstration in progress --Charlesjsharp 20:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't agree that the title is wrong but the image itself is overprocessed.--Peulle 11:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle --Jakubhal 20:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 11:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Unofficial_winner's_ceremony_SL_Soldeu_24_(3).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Women's Slalom – unofficial winner's ceremony, 3rd place: Paula Moltzan (USA), Soldeu, Andorra, 11 February 2024. --Tournasol7 05:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 05:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose misleading file name --Charlesjsharp 20:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Kruger_National_Park_(ZA),_Giraffe_--_2024_--_0064.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Giraffe, Kruger National Park, Mpumalanga, South Africa --XRay 02:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 05:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too much obscured --Charlesjsharp 20:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Then let's call it "Giraffe behind a tree" ;) Picture is good. --Plozessor 05:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good Quality, he got Battle scars too. --IM3847 09:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Kruger_National_Park_(ZA),_Meerkatze_--_2024_--_0068.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Vervet monkey on a tree, Kruger National Park, Mpumalanga, South Africa --XRay 02:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blurred and we cannot see the head --Charlesjsharp 20:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Charlesjsharp, seems not focused on the animal. --Plozessor 05:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, not sharp enough --Jakubhal 20:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_Basking_posture_of_Symphaedra_nais_(Forster,_1771)_-_Baronet_WLB_IMG_3604a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Open wing Basking posture of Symphaedra nais (Forster, 1771) - Baronet --Sandipoutsider 02:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose little definition --Charlesjsharp 20:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Бесідка._Ставок.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A pond in the village of Besidka --Nikride 08:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness, sorry, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 20:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Sharpness is enough --Nikride 11:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sufficient sharpness IMO. --Plozessor 05:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 08:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The focus is on the grass in the foreground. The forest in the background, which is most prominent in the photo, is indeed, in my opinion, too soft. Also, there is a minor perspective distortion. --Jakubhal 13:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

File:"Museum_Sorgdrager"_Oosterlaan_31,_Hollum_(Ameland).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination "Museum Sorgdrager" Oosterlaan 31, Hollum (Ameland). --JoachimKohler-HB 10:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Green CA visible, particularly on the left side of the roof, fixable? --Mike Peel 09:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Mike Peel, CA at the left side of the building and in the treetops. Otherwise ok. --Plozessor 05:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Glyderau_o_Pen_yr_Helgi_Du.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Glyderau range from Pen yr Helgi Du. By User:Erwynj
     Support Good quality. --Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)  Comment Reset to nomination since User:Llywelyn2000 is the nominator. --Milseburg 11:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 09:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose It's a very good image, but not a good image to illustrate the mountain range (fog, distracting foreground). Could be promoted with a different description. --MB-one 09:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Tribu_Laarim,_Kimotong,_Sudán_del_Sur,_2024-01-24,_DD_109.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Laarim Tribe, Kimotong, South Sudan --Poco a poco 20:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
 Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose It looks quite noisy to me, which leads to odd edge effects, see the shoulders for example. --Mike Peel 08:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
True, something went wrong here. ✓ New version Poco a poco 23:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The new version looks much better, but still noise issues, e.g., on the arm on the right of the photo, and the belly. Thanks. Mike Peel 09:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it has very strange effects (varying noise patters and halos) around the shoulders, the hair and elsewhere. Maybe it was (poorly) processed by AI? Clearly not a QI IMO, and I don't think that the current version can be edited to fix it. Maybe start a new raw conversion from scratch. --Plozessor 06:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Mike Peel and Plozessor: there is a new version...Poco a poco 12:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Better now, but at full resolution it seems to suffer from motion blur, at 2.5 MB it looks ok though. I still don't support it, but it's good enough to remove my opposing vote. Let's see what others say. --Plozessor 13:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It's good for me now, thanks for iterating on this. Thanks. Mike Peel 14:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel 09:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Lucha_entre_clanes_de_la_tribu_Mundari,_Terekeka,_Sudán_del_Sur,_2024-01-29,_DD_112.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wrestling of different clans of the Mundari tribe, Terekeka, South Sudan --Poco a poco 20:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but nothing is really sharp. --Alexander-93 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Please, let's discuss, I've uploaded a new version which deserves the stamp IMHO --Poco a poco 23:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support New version is ok. Hair is a bit blurry but it's not noticeable in downscaled versions. --Plozessor 05:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support new version, which looks better than the original one. Thanks. Mike Peel 09:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Jakubhal 13:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jakubhal 13:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Lupinus_arboreus_A74111920240108.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lupinus arboreus. --Rjcastillo 00:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --PaestumPaestum 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Unfortunately, at least the lower whorl of flowers is out of focus, the upper one looks very soft and there might be some overexposed spots. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
     Comment(both) Thanks for reviews. it adjusted a little. --Rjcastillo 01:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Mon 11 Mar → Tue 19 Mar
  • Tue 12 Mar → Wed 20 Mar
  • Wed 13 Mar → Thu 21 Mar
  • Thu 14 Mar → Fri 22 Mar
  • Fri 15 Mar → Sat 23 Mar
  • Sat 16 Mar → Sun 24 Mar
  • Sun 17 Mar → Mon 25 Mar
  • Mon 18 Mar → Tue 26 Mar
  • Tue 19 Mar → Wed 27 Mar