Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to: navigation, search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文
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 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. 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 August 2016 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]] 17:46, 29 August 2016 (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 29, 2016[edit]

August 28, 2016[edit]

August 27, 2016[edit]

  • Bulleted list item

August 26, 2016[edit]

August 25, 2016[edit]

August 24, 2016[edit]

August 23, 2016[edit]

August 22, 2016[edit]

August 21, 2016[edit]

August 20, 2016[edit]

August 19, 2016[edit]

August 5, 2016[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:2016-07-27_Seagull_in_Zandvoort_aan_Zee_(02)_(freddy2001).jpg[edit]

2016-07-27 Seagull in Zandvoort aan Zee (02) (freddy2001).jpg

  • Nomination A seagull (Larus argentatus) in the dunes of Zandvoort aan Zee. --Freddy2001 20:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ooops, change to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per below. I didn't realize that the versions were identical, thanks for pointing that out. W.carter 20:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think it is sharp enough. Charlesjsharp 22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Main object is sharp enough --Michielverbeek 06:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat low DOF, but good enough. Nice, soft lighting so there are no hard shadows. -- Smial 08:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This photo is an alternative version of File:2016-07-27 Seagull in Zandvoort aan Zee (freddy2001).jpg, which is already QI. --A.Savin 06:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as A.Savin. It´s a identical copy, just a different processing. --Hubertl 06:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. Jkadavoor 06:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Jkadavoor 06:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-007.jpg[edit]

Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-007.jpg

  • Nomination Archibasis oscillans tandem --Jkadavoor 03:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I don't think conditions made it is possible to get a QI. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment no signature, therefore striked. --Hubertl 05:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose insufficient quality Charlesjsharp 07:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a bit soft but ok --Christian Ferrer 18:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Why "insufficient quality"? Where's the problem? OK for QI. --A.Savin 06:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 07:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-004.jpg[edit]

Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-004.jpg

  • Nomination Archibasis oscillans mating --Jkadavoor 03:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I don't think conditions made it is possible to get a QI, even using flash. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment no signature, therefore striked. --Hubertl 05:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose insufficient quality. Charlesjsharp 07:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me --Christian Ferrer 18:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 07:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-008.jpg[edit]

Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-008.jpg

  • Nomination Archibasis oscillans ovipositing --Jkadavoor 03:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I don't think conditions made it is possible to get a QI, even using flash. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment no signature, therefore striked. --Hubertl 05:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose insufficient quality. Charlesjsharp 07:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sufficient quality. --A.Savin 06:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 07:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Orthetrum sabina 09229.jpg[edit]

Orthetrum sabina 09229.jpg

  • Nomination Orthetrum sabina --Vengolis 02:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jkadavoor 02:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAbdomen not in focus and quite dark. Charlesjsharp 22:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me QI --Rjcastillo 17:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 18:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Lestes elatus 1442.jpg[edit]

Lestes elatus 1442.jpg

  • Nomination Lestes elatus --Vengolis 02:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not at all sharp. Charlesjsharp 22:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough. Jkadavoor 05:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jkadavoor 05:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Euphaea dispar - Davidraju IMG 5408.jpg[edit]

Euphaea dispar - Davidraju IMG 5408.jpg

  • Nomination Euphaea dispar by Davidvraju --Jkadavoor 03:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 04:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNot sure why you are nominating this user's images Jee. They don't appear QI to me. Charlesjsharp 23:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one looks fine to me Poco a poco 09:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image. QI. --Rjcastillo 17:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 18:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 19:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Davidraju Calicnemia miniata (Selys,1886) (1).jpg[edit]

Davidraju Calicnemia miniata (Selys,1886) (1).jpg

  • Nomination Calicnemia miniata by Davidvraju --Jkadavoor 03:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality--Lmbuga 19:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not for me. blurred. Charlesjsharp 23:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Ok, this one is not as good as the other one (DoF problem / sensor not parallel to the dragonfly) Poco a poco 09:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Poco a poco 09:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Insecto polinizando.jpg[edit]

Insecto polinizando.jpg

  • Nomination Insect in flowers pollinating -- Ivan2010 (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 13:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, wich insect?, wich flowers? Can you determine something for the photo to be helpful? Not QI for me without description, sorry--Lmbuga 20:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 06:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Vreden,_Zwillbrocker_Venn_--_2016_--_4122.jpg[edit]

Vreden, Zwillbrocker Venn -- 2016 -- 4122.jpg

  • Nomination Nature reserve “Zwillbrocker Venn” (BOR-008), Vreden, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Jkadavoor 03:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think this is QI yet; half the sky is overexposed. --СССР 00:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Is this a comment or an oppose? --XRay 05:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment When it´s here, it was an oppose, XRay. Can you check it again please, СССР? --Hubertl 06:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've checked the histogram. It's OK. But I've just uploaded an image with (minor) improvements in the sky. --XRay 05:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Big parts of the sky still without any detail. Schade, das Licht war für die Landschaft selbst eigentlich sehr nett. --Smial 08:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO, regarding the faults to the complete composition, it is acceptable for QI. This should be the moment for using a grey filter with an hard edge. --Hubertl 09:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for QI. --A.Savin 06:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 09:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Castell_Llanymddyfri_Sir_Gaerfyrddin_gyda_cherflun_o_-_LLywelyn_ap_Gruffydd_Fychan_12.JPG[edit]

Castell Llanymddyfri Sir Gaerfyrddin gyda cherflun o - LLywelyn ap Gruffydd Fychan 12.JPG

  • Nomination Castell Llanymddyfri, Sir Gaerfyrddin; sculpture of LLywelyn ap Gruffydd Fychan, Welsh Prince. --Llywelyn2000 07:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, this is not QI. Insufficient quality. --Hubertl 08:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, and think we could discuss, after some possible improvements. Let this one have a chance.--Jebulon 09:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the composition, but too dark - it should be reshot in nicer weather. Also, issues with sharpness and compression artifacts. --Yerpo 10:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose underexposed, and noise reduction has killed details. -- Smial 08:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 06:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Sun 21 Aug → Mon 29 Aug
Mon 22 Aug → Tue 30 Aug
Tue 23 Aug → Wed 31 Aug
Wed 24 Aug → Thu 01 Sep
Thu 25 Aug → Fri 02 Sep
Fri 26 Aug → Sat 03 Sep
Sat 27 Aug → Sun 04 Sep
Sun 28 Aug → Mon 05 Sep
Mon 29 Aug → Tue 06 Sep