Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to: navigation, search

Other languages:
čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский
Gtk-go-down.svg Skip to nominations
float

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 is 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 must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms.
  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 does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

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]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is at least frowned upon or may even lead to immediate decline.

Evaluating images[edit]

Any registered user can review a nomination.
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 and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Grace period and promotion[edit]

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from 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 also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • 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 August 2014 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 can not 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 are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 06:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

August 22, 2014[edit]

August 21, 2014[edit]

August 20, 2014[edit]

August 19, 2014[edit]

August 18, 2014[edit]

August 17, 2014[edit]

August 16, 2014[edit]

August 15, 2014[edit]

August 14, 2014[edit]

August 13, 2014[edit]

August 12, 2014[edit]

August 11, 2014[edit]

August 7, 2014[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:Open University MMB 08.jpg[edit]

Open University MMB 08.jpg

  • Nomination Open University campus. Mattbuck 07:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 16:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree Nothing is really sharp, neither the background nor the reflections. --Smial 10:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Smial --Livioandronico2013 14:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

File:2014-08-05_10-41-15_ouvrage-g_03.jpg[edit]

2014-08-05 10-41-15 ouvrage-g 03.jpg

  • Nomination Ghosts inside an old RADAR station, Belfort, France. --ComputerHotline 07:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Pleclown 11:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    Almost all detail lost to channel overexposure. --Mattbuck 15:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Hankensbüttel - Friedhof.jpg[edit]

Hankensbüttel - Friedhof.jpg

  • Nomination Hankensbüttel cemetery, Germany. By User:Oxfordian Kissuth. Blue Elf 10:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much magenta. Magenta CA. Sky blown out. The last issue is not fixable, hence not a QI, sorry. --Cccefalon 13:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. I like such atmospheric photos. Blue sky is not necessary and here nearly impossible. -- Spurzem 14:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Probably you are in the wrong place: The "I like" is related to facebook. Here in QIC, we are dealing with photographic quality. A blown out sky and chromatic aberrations are generally opposed to QI. --Cccefalon 14:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I tried to explain that early in the morning when this photo was taken blue sky would be unusual. And your remark to facebook is misplaced. -- Spurzem 16:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Lothar, mir gefällt das Bild ästhetisch auch gut. Aber darum geht es hier nicht, sondern ausschließlich darum, ob ein Bild den objektiven technischen und gestalterischen Anforderungen an QI genügt. Und das ist hier nicht gegeben, weil eine große Fläche überbelichtet ist, so schön das Bild an sich auch sein mag. Da das in der Gegenlichtsituation mit einer Einzelaufnahme unvermeidbar ist, kann man in dieser Situation halt kein QI anfertigen, oder höchstens per HDR (wenn das Laub stillhält). --Kreuzschnabel 16:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, as Cccefalon. Upper area overexposed and blown out--Lmbuga 06:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThe subject is not the sky, it is correctly overexposed becasue the sun is in front of you and in these cases you should expose on the path and trees. --Fulvio314 07:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fulvio314, I’ve said above (in German, sorry): In such situations it is just not possible to take a QI as a single image. Picking good lighting conditions is one aspect of photographic work. Moving to CR now, as Spurzem should have done already when he added his support. --Kreuzschnabel 09:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, per Cccefalon --DKrieger 10:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I would like to see how you could take a photo with sunbeams and blue sky. The photo of Hankensbüttel Friedhof for me is QI. -- Spurzem 21:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Nobody demanded blue sky. And have you read what I said before in German? Even if this image is the best you could take under the circumstances, and even if it’s nice and fine, it still does not meet QI criteria due to the large blown area. That does not mean the picture is bad, it just does mean it doesn’t fit into this category here. --Kreuzschnabel 07:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry,per Cccefalon and Lmbuga --Livioandronico2013 08:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Chevrolet_Coupe_Typ_AB_BW_2011-09-03_13-54-37.JPG[edit]

Chevrolet Coupe Typ AB BW 2011-09-03 13-54-37.JPG

  • Nomination Chevrolet National Serie AB Coupé --Berthold Werner 06:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The retouched plate is a no-go for QI. Also the shadows have to be raised. The perspective needs to be fixed. Some slight magenta CA right side. All resolvable. --Cccefalon 10:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    ok. I have removed the ca and corrected the perspective. The blurred license plate is not a "no-go" for QI, there are lots of QIs with blurred license plates and in this case it was addionally wish of the organiser. --Berthold Werner 08:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, it cannot be a QI then. According to QI Guideline "Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive." --Cccefalon 19:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    Not accepted, two reason are already given. --Berthold Werner 10:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don’t think the blurred plate impairs the quality or value of this image too severely though it would have been nicer without that manipulation. Why should a blurred plate be a no-go? There’s clearly no intended deception – or who would think when viewing the image the place was really looking like this? --Kreuzschnabel 07:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I took the liberty to apply the required Retouched template. Still, this retouching is an immediate and dominant eye catcher when you open the file. Even in the thumbnal here, it attracts your attention. For me, it even fails the well-done criteria. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Tayassu tajacu.jpg[edit]

Tayassu tajacu.jpg

  • Nomination Collared Peccary --Chrumps 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion It is a small resolution of a comparatively big animal. Nethertheless, the full resolution does not show sufficient sharpness. --Cccefalon 04:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Picture is sharp and resolution is over 2Mpx --Jacek Halicki 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose somes areas have been overexposed --Christian Ferrer 18:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not QI for me. It is not easy to say why: Oversharpened IMO, overexposed (as Christian Ferrer), not good detail (as Cccefalon)--Lmbuga 01:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Parnassius apollo MHNT CUT 2013 3 3 male Porté-Puymorens dos.jpg[edit]

Parnassius apollo MHNT CUT 2013 3 3 male Porté-Puymorens dos.jpg

  • Nomination Parnassius apollo --Archaeodontosaurus 18:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. --Livioandronico2013 20:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    Difficult case, but I think some bright parts have detail loss due to overexposure. Recoverable from RAW? --Tuxyso 21:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you add an image note to show where? Thanks --Livioandronico2013 22:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me--Lmbuga 00:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    It is the complete dotted surface of the butterfly. I assume that there could be much more details. --Tuxyso 05:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Among the thirty specimen I had available to me this is the best. But there are areas where the scales are contiguous, it may have been caught very near to hatching. The brightness scales, is specific to this genre. --Archaeodontosaurus 13:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me --Christian Ferrer 18:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JLPC 13:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Paris,_Conciergerie_--_2014_--_1324.jpg[edit]

Paris, Conciergerie -- 2014 -- 1324.jpg

  • Nomination Clock, Conciergerie, Paris, France --XRay 03:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overexposed sky. --Mattbuck 22:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Overexposed areas improved. Thanks for your advice.--XRay 17:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    While it is better, the top still seems overexposed to me. Mattbuck 19:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 11:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. -- Spurzem 14:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the upper part with the leafs too distracting. I'd crop them. XtoF 21:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion the leafs are a good foreground. -- Spurzem 14:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sky, left right corner, overexposed. Leafs too distracting. It's a bit tilted IMO (see 6 and 12 hours in the clock)--Lmbuga 01:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Eckhaus_Drei_König.jpg[edit]

Lörrach - Eckhaus Drei König.jpg

  • Nomination Lörrach: corner building "three kings" --Taxiarchos228 20:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overall good quality. Please remove the magenta CA at the lamp post. --Cccefalon 20:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
     Not done and loss of detail in the trees. Mattbuck 22:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    the trees are NOT main object but far in the background, your argument is really absurd --Taxiarchos228 20:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 19:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 16:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_KölnKubus-at-Deutzer-Feld-02.jpg[edit]

Cologne Germany KölnKubus-at-Deutzer-Feld-02.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: KölnKubus at Deutzer Feld --Cccefalon 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    There is Moiré in the top fence unidentified user
    ✓ Done moiré removed --Cccefalon 20:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    A bit of posterisation and B/Y CA at the sides. Mattbuck 20:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ uploaded new version --Cccefalon 18:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, but I'm not convinced due to blur. --Mattbuck 18:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Other opinions please. --Cccefalon 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry,I see blur, especially on the left --Livioandronico2013 22:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Templo_budista,_Angkor_Thom,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_01.jpg[edit]

Templo budista, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 01.jpg

  • Nomination Bayon, Angkor Thom‎, Cambodia --Poco a poco 17:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfavorable light conditions. --Iifar 17:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    What is the Problem with lighting? It is dark under a roof. --Smial 22:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Thu 14 Aug → Fri 22 Aug
Fri 15 Aug → Sat 23 Aug
Sat 16 Aug → Sun 24 Aug
Sun 17 Aug → Mon 25 Aug
Mon 18 Aug → Tue 26 Aug
Tue 19 Aug → Wed 27 Aug
Wed 20 Aug → Thu 28 Aug
Thu 21 Aug → Fri 29 Aug
Fri 22 Aug → Sat 30 Aug