Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
Skip to nominations
Quality images logo.svg

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]

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 May 2023.
  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 May 2023.
  • 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 May 29 2023 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]] 14:53, 29 May 2023 (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

May 29, 2023[edit]

May 28, 2023[edit]

May 27, 2023[edit]

May 26, 2023[edit]

May 25, 2023[edit]

May 24, 2023[edit]

May 23, 2023[edit]

May 22, 2023[edit]

May 21, 2023[edit]

May 20, 2023[edit]

May 19, 2023[edit]

May 18, 2023[edit]

May 17, 2023[edit]

May 16, 2023[edit]

May 15, 2023[edit]

May 12, 2023[edit]

May 9, 2023[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".



File:2023_Spryskiwacz_z_myjką_Karcher_(2).jpg[edit]

2023 Spryskiwacz z myjką Karcher (2).jpg

  • Nomination Karcher spray bootle with wiping cloth 2 --Jacek Halicki 07:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very good for the dark part, but the white parts bleed into the background too much, sorry. --Mike Peel 21:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Schleswig-Holstein,_Itzehoe,_Laurentii-Kirche_NIK_2652.jpg[edit]

Schleswig-Holstein, Itzehoe, Laurentii-Kirche NIK 2652.jpg

  • Nomination Impressionen aus dem Inneren der Stadtkirche St. Laurentii in Itzehoe. --Nightflyer 20:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion The perspective and the brightness would have to be corrected. Also, the candles and flowers should have been put away before the picture was taken. -- Spurzem 10:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    GA candidate.svg Weak support I think the picture could be sharper and, yes, a little bit brighter, but it is still good enough for a QI. Spurzem's request to redecorate the temple is unfeasible and should not be part of the evaluation. --Jakubhal 03:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

File:New_York_Stock_Exchange_August_2017_03.jpg[edit]

New York Stock Exchange August 2017 03.jpg

  • Nomination New York Stock Exchange August 2017 (by ArildV) --Sebring12Hrs 13:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The motif is largely in the shadows; not a quality image for me. But maybe others think differently. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 12:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Spurzem. I am usually pretty tolerant of shadows, but they are so prevalent in this picture that they are really problematic to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with you both. Not a QI for me --Halavar 08:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Halavar 08:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

File:2023-02-05_48._Hallorenpokal_A-Final_Men_(Martin_Rulsch)_189.jpg[edit]

2023-02-05 48. Hallorenpokal A-Final Men (Martin Rulsch) 189.jpg

  • Nomination A-Final Men at the 48th Hallorenpokal in diving in Halle (Saale) on 5 February 2023. By User:DerHexer --Augustgeyler 08:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Leg cropped off. --BigDom 16:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I think this image is well composed and would like to ask for more opinions. --Augustgeyler 20:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose I think the crop is not a problem, and the composition is good. However, the depth of field is very low, and it looks like the focus is on the boy's torso, not his face. -- Jakubhal 09:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop --Tagooty 09:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of the crop and the color -- Spurzem 12:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Clove_close_up.jpg[edit]

Clove close up.jpg

  • Nomination Macro image of the dried Clove bud --sanjay_ach 19:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree it is good quality, but I think it would look better symmetrically cropped. --BigDom 16:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Not sure if @BigDom: is opposing or only commenting, so moved to CR. Note that QICvote's "Comment" changed "Promotion" to "Review" which is not the correct flow. --Tagooty 08:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Definitely not opposing, it's a great macro shot. I just don't get why it's not in the middle. Never intended it to come to CR, it was just a comment in case the uploader wanted to fix it. BigDom (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
        • Just would like to add my thought here while taking the picture. The reason why it's not in the middle is to give a perspective view from the bud end so that the viewer can see the complex details from that end. Hope that helps. --sanjay_ach 14:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I hope he wasn't opposing. Amazing closeup. -- Ikan Kekek 06:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks ok. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

File:2022-05-21_50._Internationales_Dixieland_Festival_Dresden_1DX_1526_by_Stepro.jpg[edit]

2022-05-21 50. Internationales Dixieland Festival Dresden 1DX 1526 by Stepro.jpg

  • Nomination 50th International Dixieland Festival Dresden: Dresdner Jazzmeile, Terrence Ngassa & The new Louis Armstrong Band (Kamerun). By --Stepro 19:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Visible Warning Symbol – Chromatic Aberration.svg chromatic aberration on arms. Can you correct it, please? --LexKurochkin 13:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks, I fixed it (hope so). --Stepro 22:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Yellow check.svg Half done @Stepro: Better, but, please pay attention to magenta CA on his right sleeve --LexKurochkin 08:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Let's discuss --LexKurochkin 12:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I can't fix that easily. I also don't know if that's CA or from the colored stage lights. --Stepro 15:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I have no doubt that that's a magenta CA border on part of the top of his sleeve. -- Ikan Kekek 06:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. It's a pity that the left hand is slight cropped. But otherwise it is good for me. -- Spurzem 20:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment There's CA on the instrument also. Try reducing the saturation of Aqua color. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 11:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Penne_Arrabbiata.jpg[edit]

Penne Arrabbiata.jpg

  • Nomination Penne all'arrabbiata --PetarM 06:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality: the mobile phone hasn't quite been able to capture the level of detail needed, IMO. --Peulle 06:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see plenty of detail at larger than life size, so I think your standards are too demanding. -- Ikan Kekek 19:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good quality. I've the impression that more and more people are judging by the camera which was used to take the photos. -- Spurzem 10:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I've been wondering about that, too - both ways, though. I've seen some comments suggesting that cellphone pictures might be fairly judged at a lower standard than DSLR pictures. We should just judge what we're seeing. I'd add, though, that this is not "100% sharp minute detail candidates," just "Quality image candidates." If our standard becomes that we not only have to see the ribs on the penne clearly but that they must be 100% sharp at larger than life size, what in the world are we doing? -- Ikan Kekek 17:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With Peulle. --August Geyler (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QI for me --Kritzolina 17:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan Kekek. BigDom 17:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The crop isn't very good and there are some blurred areas. --Sebring12Hrs 20:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unfortunately per Sebring12Hrs. --MB-one 12:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question An entire dish doesn't have to all be equally sharp, does it? -- Ikan Kekek 20:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – dislike the top right and the poor crop. --SHB2000 10:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)