Commons:Quality images candidates

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

Shortcut
COM:QIC
Skip to nominations
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
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 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]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


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.
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 October 16 2018 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]] 02:10, 16 October 2018 (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.

October 16, 2018[edit]

October 15, 2018[edit]

October 14, 2018[edit]

October 13, 2018[edit]

October 12, 2018[edit]

October 11, 2018[edit]

October 10, 2018[edit]

October 9, 2018[edit]

October 8, 2018[edit]

October 7, 2018[edit]

October 6, 2018[edit]

October 5, 2018[edit]

October 4, 2018[edit]

October 3, 2018[edit]

October 1, 2018[edit]

September 25, 2018[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:Scania_truck_cockpit,_DRIVE._Volkswagen_Group_Forum,_Berlin_(1X7A3953).jpg[edit]

Scania truck cockpit, DRIVE. Volkswagen Group Forum, Berlin (1X7A3953).jpg

  • Nomination Scania truck cockpit, 70 Years Porsche, DRIVE. Volkswagen Group Forum --MB-one 18:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid the technical quality leaves something to be desired here, re the sharpness especially. Also, the file name and description just confuse me.--Peulle 23:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO sharp enough for Q1 (right corner is not blurred) and the description does not confuse me --Michielverbeek 08:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I'd support sharpening this, but I do think it's sufficiently sharp at 300% of my laptop screen to be minimally acceptable for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 09:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: thanks for the review. Tried to fix the description and the file name. --MB-one 10:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Veria_BW_2017-10-06_09-40-08.jpg[edit]

Veria BW 2017-10-06 09-40-08.jpg

  • Nomination Greece, Veria, Saint Paul altar --Berthold Werner 10:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The top of picture is out of focus, not QI for me--Սարո Հովհաննիսյան 07:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Everything in the niche is sharp enough at 300% of my laptop screen. The tiles on top of the niche are unsharp, but I think that was the photographer's choice and doesn't make the picture poor-quality. -- Ikan Kekek 09:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 10:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Porsche,_Paris_Motor_Show_2018,_Paris_(1Y7A2131).jpg[edit]

Porsche, Paris Motor Show 2018, Paris (1Y7A2131).jpg

  • Nomination Porsche 718 Boxster GTS, Mondiale Paris Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 18:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for discussion; I'm not so sure about this one, since the rims are blurry I think the whole image is struggling with sharpness. --Peulle 23:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 07:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Saint_Dionysius_Church_of_Berbiguieres_03.jpg[edit]

Saint Dionysius Church of Berbiguieres 03.jpg

  • Nomination Saint Dionysius Church of Berbiguieres, Dordogne, France. --Tournasol7 05:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Too bad about the car. But good enough for me.--Famberhorst 06:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMHO the crop is too tight to the left. Please discuss. --C messier 15:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per C messier, and with that cropped car it isn't a QI for me either. --Basotxerri 08:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 07:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Bamberg_Feldhüterhäuschen_9111465.jpg[edit]

Bamberg Feldhüterhäuschen 9111465.jpg

  • Nomination Field guard's cottage near Burgheimer location in Bamberg --Ermell 06:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A weak oppose for the out of focus foreground branch hidding part of the chimney. --C messier 16:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The object of criticism here, I believe, is the technical execution. The cottage cannot be photographed differently because it stands on private ground. --Ermell 12:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO, you could move the small branch out of the frame. --C messier 16:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 07:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Me too. -- Ikan Kekek 09:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ungrateful motive photographed in good quality. Ok for QI to me. --Carschten 12:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 09:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Santa_Maria_del_Mar_-_elememt_from_rose_window.jpg[edit]

Santa Maria del Mar - elememt from rose window.jpg

  • Nomination Rose window of Santa Maria del Mar --MHlopov 22:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough, especially the left top --Michielverbeek 18:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • the focus is in the center of the frame, the object is the window, not the wall in the left corner! --MHlopov 21:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, I agree: The sharpness is not impressive. -- Ikan Kekek 08:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 10:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Würzburg,_Eichhornstraße_--_2018_--_0240.jpg[edit]

Würzburg, Eichhornstraße -- 2018 -- 0240.jpg

  • Nomination Light of a bench, Eichhornstraße, Würzburg, Bavaria, Germany --XRay 04:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What does this picture want to show? --Ermell 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I improved the description, it is a light of a bench. --XRay 04:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a nice and pretty abstract shot but I'm missing a defined area of sharpness here. --Basotxerri 08:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - IMO, abstract pictures have a form and an affect and don't have to be sharp. And enough of this is sharp at 300% of my laptop screen, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek 08:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this picture :^) --Cvmontuy 13:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing is sharp.--Peulle 23:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oh, there are perfectly sharp areas, but these are in very dark areas of the image. So though the image is very well composed, I need to decline because of wrong focus, sorry. Also some green CA. Focus should have been somewhere on the edge between black and white. --Smial 11:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 08:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Marienweiher_Basilika_923185001_HDR.jpg[edit]

Marienweiher Basilika 923185001 HDR.jpg

  • Nomination Interior of the pilgrimage basilica in Marienweiher --Ermell 06:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good Quality. -- Nirmal Dulal 08:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for discussion; I think we should take a closer look at this one. I don't think the sharpness is very good, and it looks like it's had a lot of work done in post. Let's see what others think.--Peulle 08:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In the area of the rear windows, the perspective looks unnaturally distorted. But this is inevitable with this type of photo. I like the picture very much. -- Spurzem 10:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Peulle: looks like an overdone noise reduction. What happened here? --Carschten 12:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 08:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Mon 08 Oct → Tue 16 Oct
Tue 09 Oct → Wed 17 Oct
Wed 10 Oct → Thu 18 Oct
Thu 11 Oct → Fri 19 Oct
Fri 12 Oct → Sat 20 Oct
Sat 13 Oct → Sun 21 Oct
Sun 14 Oct → Mon 22 Oct
Mon 15 Oct → Tue 23 Oct
Tue 16 Oct → Wed 24 Oct