Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Revision as of 07:33, 9 September 2024 by Kryesmin (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 December 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 December 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 December 28 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]] 15:22, 28 December 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).


December 28, 2024

[edit]

December 27, 2024

[edit]

December 26, 2024

[edit]

December 25, 2024

[edit]

December 24, 2024

[edit]

December 23, 2024

[edit]

December 22, 2024

[edit]

December 21, 2024

[edit]

December 20, 2024

[edit]

December 19, 2024

[edit]

December 18, 2024

[edit]

December 17, 2024

[edit]

December 16, 2024

[edit]

December 13, 2024

[edit]

December 10, 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:Бывший_песчаный_карьер_в_Павлово.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lake, Pavlovo, Kirovsky district (by Olga1969) --FBilula 13:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Lots of CAs at the edges, but that could be fixable. --AVDLCZ 20:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Why is this here without a vote? Anyway,  Oppose due CA per AVDLCZ. --Plozessor 08:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Brive-la-Gaillarde_-_Collégiale_Saint-Martin_-_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Brive-la-Gaillarde (Corrèze, France) - St. Martin's collegiate church - The nave --Benjism89 08:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blown highlights. Sorry. --Ermell 08:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are blown highlights, but on a small portion of the picture. Taking a picture inside a dark church without the light entering through the windows being blown is hard, and I think it's acceptable as long as the windows are not the main subject / don't represent a significant proportion of the picture. So I'd like to read other opinions. --Benjism89 22:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately the windows are completely blown (not only overexposed), and they are the very central part of the image (contrary to other church pictures where the altar is in focus and there are blown windows only on the side). Also the overall quality isn't perfect (not too sharp and with low detail). Both issues alone could probably be overlooked, but the combination is too much IMO. --Plozessor 08:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Brive-la-Gaillarde_-_Collégiale_Saint-Martin_-_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Brive-la-Gaillarde (Corrèze, France) - St. Martin's collegiate church - The nave --Benjism89 08:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Blown windows. Sorry. --Ermell 08:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, there are blown highlights, but on a small portion of the picture. Taking a picture inside a dark church without the light entering through the windows being blown is hard, and I think it's acceptable as long as the windows are not the main subject / don't represent a significant proportion of the picture. So I'd like to read other opinions. --Benjism89 22:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Placa_Huellas_Eusébio_A74277220241123.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eusébio Footprints Plate. --Rjcastillo 01:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 02:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    This image obviously comes from a museum. More information as to what it is and its significance needs to be in thw image description. Also, are there no copyright issues with this image? Please discuss. --GRDN711 03:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Comment These are tributes to different footballers (the majority of Brazilian nationality). These pieces can be photographed indicated by the same people responsible for the collection that are in the Maracaná stadium, Rio de Janeiro. If anyone can provide support on the topic, thank you in advance. --Rjcastillo 00:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Per COM:QIC this image needs a complete and accurate description on the file page. The issue of copyright should also be addressed. --GRDN711 18:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)✓ Done Legends and descriptions corrected. --Rjcastillo 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Placa_Huellas_de_Alex_A74275820241123.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Alex's Footprints Plate. --Rjcastillo 01:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 02:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is not enough to make and upload an image. Per COM:QIC, for this picture to be valuable for use in Wikimedia and other projects, this image must have an accurate description on the file page of what it is. It should state that these are hand and feet imprints of notable footballers? Whose imprints are they? – please provide the popular name/formal name of the footballer. Where are they found? - Calçada da Fama do Maracanã (Maracanã Walk of Fame) at the Jornalista Mário Filho Stadium in Maracanã, Brazil? Also, is posting an image of these imprints permissible under the copyright laws of Brazil? --GRDN711 18:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)✓ Done Legends and descriptions corrected. --Rjcastillo 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Placa_Huellas_de_Leônidas_A74275620241123.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Footprints of Leônidas Plate. --Rjcastillo 01:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 02:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Per COM:QIC this image needs a complete and accurate description on the file page. The issue of copyright should also be addressed. --GRDN711 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)✓ Done Legends and descriptions corrected. --Rjcastillo 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Westland-Poeldijk,_standbeeld_van_pastoor_Franciscus_Verburch_ontworpen_door_August_Falise_IMG_4355_2024-08-05_14.09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Poeldijk Zuid Holland-NL, statue of pastor Franciscus Verburch designed by August Falise --Michielverbeek 07:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Statue out of focus. --Scotch Mist 08:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Imo the statue is sharp enough for QI, also the top However I ✓ Done cropped the bottom and the right because I think it's looking better --Michielverbeek 20:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the base is sharp but the statue is not, this is a photographic defect. --Plozessor 07:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 23:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The fact that the sharpness is not absolute but in my opinion sufficient could be due to a defect in the lens. I had an 85 mm zoom, which blurred all the images on the left. What I don't like about the image presented here is the angle from which the photo was taken. -- Spurzem 12:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Salzgeber,_Auto_2024,_Zurich_(PANA0375).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rainer Maria Salzgeber at Auto Zürich 2024 --MB-one 00:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 03:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tighter crop needed. --Kallerna 15:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is good and crop is fine (it shows the state as context). --Plozessor 07:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and good composition -- Spurzem 10:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 10:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Cotorra_alejandrina_(Psittacula_eupatria),_parque_de_Topkapı,_Estambul,_Turquía,_2024-09-30,_DD_94.jpg

[edit]

  •  Support 👍 IMO over the bar now. --Plozessor 11:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I am not entirely convinced, but this version is considerably better. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Ain_Leuh_commune_5.jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment No, it's still not good. You've straightened the gates, but it made the top crop of the photo worse. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The left is now leaning more than before, also there's lens distortion (straight lines appear curved). All of this could probably be addressed with better raw conversion though. --Plozessor 07:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 10:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

File:3_Zinnen_Dolomites_ski_resort_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hasenköpfl chair lift, Helm/Monte Elmo, 3 Zinnen Dolomites ski resort. --Kallerna 16:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 19:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow is very disturbing, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 21:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadowy part is too dark. Can probably be fixed with different raw conversion settings. --Plozessor 06:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of the shadow -- Spurzem 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the juxtaposition of the sun and shadow parts, it makes the picture more vivid and interesting, and the shadow is not critically dark IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Realistic colors and light. --Sebring12Hrs 11:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Karaköy_desde_el_puente_de_Gálata,_Estambul,_Turquía,_2024-09-28,_DD_93.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Karaköy from the Galata Bridge, Istanbul, Turkey --Poco a poco 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much/not enough bridge, too much sky. Overall bad crop. --Kallerna 19:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Poor judgement. Adding the fishing rods (and therefore some sky) was intentional and a valid composition. Yours is no reason to decline a picture for QI. --Poco a poco 21:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO it's a valid composition, using the bridge as kind of frame. However, this should be somehow mentioned in the description. Now it just says "Karaköy from the Galata Bridge", the bridge and fishermen are not mentioned at all. --Plozessor 06:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Rjcastillo 23:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 20 Dec → Sat 28 Dec
  • Sat 21 Dec → Sun 29 Dec
  • Sun 22 Dec → Mon 30 Dec
  • Mon 23 Dec → Tue 31 Dec
  • Tue 24 Dec → Wed 01 Jan
  • Wed 25 Dec → Thu 02 Jan
  • Thu 26 Dec → Fri 03 Jan
  • Fri 27 Dec → Sat 04 Jan
  • Sat 28 Dec → Sun 05 Jan