Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:

Česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Македонски | 日本語 | Polski | +/−

Skip to nominations 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.

Contents

[edit] Purpose

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.

[edit] Guidelines

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

[edit] For nominators

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images, more detailed criteria is available at Image guidelines.

[edit] Image page requirements
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at COM:CT.
  2. Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms.
  3. 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.
[edit] Creator

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).

[edit] Technical requirements

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

[edit] Resolution

Graphics located on Commons may be used not only for viewing them on a screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices would be used in the future either, so it is important that pictures being nominated have a reasonably large resolution. 2 megapixels is normally the lower limit, but for 'easy to take' images, reviewers may demand more. (Not applicable for SVG images).

[edit] Image quality

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as 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.

[edit] Composition and lighting

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.

[edit] Value

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

[edit] How to nominate

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. Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is frowned upon.

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.

[edit] Evaluating images

Any registered user can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

[edit] How to review

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.

[edit] Grace period and promotion

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.

[edit] How to execute decision

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

[edit] Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

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 February 2012 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

[edit] Consensual review process

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.

[edit] How to ask for consensual review

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.

[edit] Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page cache

[edit] Nominations

Due to changes in 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]] 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note to open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC). Thank you.

[edit] February 12, 2012

[edit] February 11, 2012

[edit] February 10, 2012

[edit] February 9, 2012

[edit] February 8, 2012

[edit] February 7, 2012

[edit] February 6, 2012

[edit] February 5, 2012

[edit] February 4, 2012

[edit] February 3, 2012

[edit] February 2, 2012

[edit] February 1, 2012

[edit] January 31, 2012

[edit] January 30, 2012

[edit] January 29, 2012

[edit] January 28, 2012

[edit] January 27, 2012

[edit] January 25, 2012

[edit] January 24, 2012

[edit] January 21, 2012

[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 - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text 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 image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 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".

[edit] Consensual Review

Use the same format as is already here:

  • Add a heading, eg "===photo title==="
  • Add braces and a size to the image name, eg "200px" (You have to do this, because it isn't in a gallery any more)
  • Change /Decline or /Accept to /Discuss.
  • Add a new line after the 2nd "|"
  • Put a new line before the final "}}"

[edit] File:Magnus_Ljunggren_Göteborg_Book_Fair_2011.jpg

Magnus Ljunggren Göteborg Book Fair 2011.jpg

  • Nomination Swedish writer Magnus Ljunggren at Göteborg Book Fair 2011. --ArildV 13:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting info.svg InfoUnderexposed.--PereslavlFoto 14:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC) New version uploaded. --ArildV 15:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - bad crop, focus seems more on the light than the person. Mattbuck 16:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chiesa di Santo Spirito di Gorizia - Night (1).jpg

Chiesa di Santo Spirito di Gorizia - Night (1).jpg

  • Nomination Church of Santo Spirito by night, Italy. --T137 02:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Could be sharper.--PereslavlFoto 12:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


[edit] File:Zoom_effect.jpg

Zoom effect.jpg

  • Nomination A photograph taken with a zoom lens, in which the focal length was varied during the course of the exposure. --Gauravjuvekar 07:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting effect, but not QI for me. --NorbertNagel 21:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My head starts twirling, if I look at this. I don't think that QI should do that. Face-smile.svg --Iifar 13:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a simple effect in photoshop. what want this motiv say to us? to me nothing, sorry --Ralf Roletschek 14:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment-Although a simple effect in photoshop, this is not photoshop-manipulation. It was really taken that way. Also, head-twirling has got nothing to do with QI guidelines-See com:QI.

Pictures with especial technical merit. These images can be used as reference tools for teaching and explaining concepts in photography.


If
File:Leaf trails.JPG
File:ComputerHotline - A36 (by) (1).jpg
File:Automobile light trails.jpg-Pls edit the description page-The image was not created with GIMP.
File:2011-11-04 17-29-48-a36.jpg-Pls suggest a name-I could'nt think of any.
can be QI's with respect to exposure, I see no reason why this image can't-The focal length was adjusted during the exposure.


I think that an intentional zoom blur image could be used to explain the concept. Please analyze this image keeping in mind that it was meant that way and check the technical quality. Also note that the central part of the tree in the middle of the image is in focus.
Gauravjuvekar 14:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • head-twirling was a joke, main reason for my oppose is that only very small area in the middle is in focus. --Iifar 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I am very tempted to make this my desktop. Fun effect. Mattbuck 16:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok, I change my mind. --Ralf Roletschek 19:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes? Mattbuck 16:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kentish Town railway station MMB 07.jpg

Kentish Town railway station MMB 07.jpg

  • Nomination A rainbow in the sky. Mattbuck 07:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, good (mattbuckian) idea. ;) --Jebulon 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice, but tilted and oof (unsharp) --Carschten 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    I don't think the lamppost is vertical in real life. Mattbuck 13:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even if it was I am not certain why that would matter. Nice artistic shot. A refreshing change from all the archiving that goes on here. Saffron Blaze 18:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • +1--Jebulon 23:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me its a nice QI. --Ralf Roletschek 14:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Národní park Malá Fatra, výhled z Chlebu.JPG

Národní park Malá Fatra, výhled z Chlebu.JPG

  • Nomination View from Chleb mountain, Slovakia, --Podzemnik 14:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The trees below are too noisy, sorry. --Kadellar 13:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose really beautiful view, but here's nothing sharp... --Carschten 19:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 19:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Trametes versicolor stump.jpg

Trametes versicolor stump.jpg

  • Nomination A stump completely covered by Trametes versicolor. --Óðinn 03:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Background looks artificial, otherwise good documentation, I need a second opinion. --Mbdortmund 06:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support From my side: very good composition, I like it and would say QI for me -- Achim Raschka 07:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose If I look in the Trametes versicolor category, it appears to be only average. There are much better images. --NorbertNagel 21:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment moving to the consensual review. --Óðinn 15:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 11:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pumpjack Drayton Valley 03.jpg

Pumpjack Drayton Valley 03.jpg

  • Nomination Oil pump in Drayton Valley, Alberta. -- Achim Raschka 23:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline Too tight at top--Lmbuga 22:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    Tried a crop with more space on top - please re-evaluate -- Achim Raschka 12:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    Better, but I'm not sure: Discuss--Lmbuga 21:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose crop is good (now), but the image is too unsharp --Carschten 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chromatic aberrations.--PereslavlFoto 22:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 11:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Statue femme autruche Vaux le Vicomte.jpg

Statue femme autruche Vaux le Vicomte.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of a sitting woman with an ostrich, 17th-century, Château de Vaux-le-Vicomte, France.--Jebulon 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Vassil 23:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not entirely convinced - I think a crop would be better to remove the corner of the building. Mattbuck 10:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done. Was on purpose. The statue stays at the corner of the castle... But compo is now better, indeed.--Jebulon 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. ok for me. --WhiteWriter 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMHO. --T137 11:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Crop noted, objection withdrawn. Mattbuck 00:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --T137 11:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chkalovsky-street-16.jpg

Chkalovsky-street-16.jpg

  • Nomination Street in a small Russian town --PereslavlFoto 16:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The licence plates should be whited/cloned out for privacy. --Pitke 18:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The lighting is rather odd. Mattbuck 00:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me --Carschten 19:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --Iifar 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Enrique_Bunbury_-_03.jpg

Enrique Bunbury - 03.jpg

  • Nomination Enrique Bunbury during a concert in 2012. --Kadellar 15:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad detail and halos IMO, see the left hand. A bit of noise--Lmbuga 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • IMHO, the red halos in his hand are only due to the concert lights and because of a sudden movement. Concert pictures are hard to take! --Kadellar 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think that the better is "discuss", because others can think--Lmbuga 21:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the chance. --Kadellar 21:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in this situation its normal to have "halos". I think, QI. --Ralf Roletschek 10:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Lmbuga. --Iifar 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pchelin village.jpg

Pchelin village.jpg

  • Nomination Pchelin village below the morning fog. --MrPanyGoff 12:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I offer such variant ;) (the file is updated) --Aleks G 22:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I think something in between the two would be better - original is a bit green, current is too red. Mattbuck 14:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I offer such variant (the file is updated) Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aleks G 00:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Your new version has significant overexposure. Of the three, I'd be inclined to promote the original. Mattbuck 15:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 11:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Canon-IMG 1784-white.jpg

Canon-IMG 1784-white.jpg

  • Nomination Field cannon of the 19th century. -- Rama 06:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI, though the rear end of the cannon is slightly out of focus.. --NorbertNagel 18:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposeunclean outline selection. --LC-de 09:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Iifar 11:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

Sat 04 Feb → Sun 12 Feb
Sun 05 Feb → Mon 13 Feb
Mon 06 Feb → Tue 14 Feb
Tue 07 Feb → Wed 15 Feb
Wed 08 Feb → Thu 16 Feb
Thu 09 Feb → Fri 17 Feb
Fri 10 Feb → Sat 18 Feb
Sat 11 Feb → Sun 19 Feb
Sun 12 Feb → Mon 20 Feb
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Participate
Toolbox