Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
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 June 2022.
  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 June 2022.
  • 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 June 29 2022 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]] 14:02, 29 June 2022 (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


June 29, 2022[edit]

June 28, 2022[edit]

June 27, 2022[edit]

June 26, 2022[edit]

June 25, 2022[edit]

June 24, 2022[edit]

June 23, 2022[edit]

June 22, 2022[edit]

June 21, 2022[edit]

June 20, 2022[edit]

June 19, 2022[edit]

June 17, 2022[edit]

June 16, 2022[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:Myna_Bathing1_Nagarhole_Apr22_D72_24091.jpg[edit]

Myna Bathing1 Nagarhole Apr22 D72 24091.jpg

  • Nomination Common myna (Acridotheres tristis) bathing (1 of 3) in Gopaladevaragudi Tank, Nagarhole Tiger Reserve, Karnataka --Tagooty 03:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, the photo is not sharp --MIGORMCZ 09:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The bird seems pretty sharp to me for an action shot. -- Ikan Kekek 06:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry: blurred, too low sharpness for QI Face-sad.svg. --F. Riedelio 09:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Myna_Bathing2_Nagarhole_Apr22_D72_24092.jpg[edit]

Myna Bathing2 Nagarhole Apr22 D72 24092.jpg

  • Nomination Common myna (Acridotheres tristis) bathing (2 of 3) in Gopaladevaragudi Tank, Nagarhole Tiger Reserve, Karnataka --Tagooty 03:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp --MIGORMCZ 09:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    The water drops are sharp. Given the very rapid motion of the bird and the water on its feathers, some lack of detail there is expected. --Tagooty 14:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not as sharp as the one above, but still a QI action shot to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Myna_Bathing3_Nagarhole_Apr22_D72_24095.jpg[edit]

Myna Bathing3 Nagarhole Apr22 D72 24095.jpg

  • Nomination Common myna (Acridotheres tristis) bathing (3 of 3) in Gopaladevaragudi Tank, Nagarhole Tiger Reserve, Karnataka --Tagooty 03:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp --MIGORMCZ 09:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    The water drops are sharp. Given the very rapid motion of the bird and the water on its feathers, some lack of detail there is expected. --Tagooty 14:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per MIGORMCZ on this one. It's hard to recognize features of the bird other than the beak. -- Ikan Kekek 08:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry: blurred, too low sharpness for QI, too much waterdrops Face-sad.svg. --F. Riedelio 09:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback. --Tagooty 13:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bahía_Rocosa,_San_Lawrenz,_isla_de_Gozo,_Malta,_2021-08-22,_DD_70.jpg[edit]

Bahía Rocosa, San Lawrenz, isla de Gozo, Malta, 2021-08-22, DD 70.jpg

  • Nomination Coast of San Lawrenz, Gozo Island, Malta --Poco a poco 06:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even if Poco a poco will be angry with me again, but at least the upper half of the photo is completely out of focus. --Steindy 21:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    "Angry again"?, look at the result of your decline in the CR section. Regarding this image I'm aware that the tower is not sharp, that's intentional, my intention was to show the dried out coral in the coast of San Lawrenz --Poco a poco 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Succeeds in its own terms. -- Ikan Kekek 07:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Possibly a little bit overexposed again, some insignificant details in the background look like clipping in the red channel to me. This does not disturb the overall impression, it is just meant as a hint. Some critics reveal a fundamental ignorance as far as optical laws are concerned. Without going into further detail here now: It is technically impossible to image a range from three meters to "infinity" pixel sharp with a high-resolution digital 35 mm camera and the 28 mm focal length used. Diffraction prevents this. Of course, you could fix the problem via focus stacking, but I think it might be a tiny bit overkill to require this procedure as mandatory for QI in common landscape photos. --Smial 11:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)[reply]

File:Tusker_Elephant_Bath1_Nagarhole_Kabini_Apr22_D72_23842.jpg[edit]

Tusker Elephant Bath1 Nagarhole Kabini Apr22 D72 23842.jpg

  • Nomination Tusker approaches Kabini reservoir for bath (1 of 3). Elephas maximus indicus. Karnataka--Tagooty 03:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
    Looks tilted and would benefit from some more contrast --Poco a poco 07:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose little detail after the big crop --Charlesjsharp 09:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Poco a poco and Charlesjsharp: Sorry, I uploaded a lowres file by mistake. Please review the new hires image. --Tagooty 14:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have done. Charlesjsharp 08:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tusker_Elephant_Bath3_Nagarhole_Kabini_Apr22_D72_23844.jpg[edit]

Tusker Elephant Bath3 Nagarhole Kabini Apr22 D72 23844.jpg

  • Nomination Tusker takes mud bath in Kabini (3 of 3). Elephas maximus indicus. Karnataka --Tagooty 03:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blurred and framing is not good --Charlesjsharp 09:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Charlesjsharp: Sorry, I uploaded a lowres file by mistake. Please review the new hires image. What is wrong with the framing? --Tagooty 14:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    not enough space at the bottom. Picture lacks balance. Charlesjsharp 08:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:La_madeleine_chateau.jpg[edit]

La madeleine chateau.jpg

  • Nomination The Château de la Madeleine, Rue du Général de Gaulle 250, La Madeleine, France --Velvet 07:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
    I find that that shadow in the foreground spoils the compo --Poco a poco 07:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review. I can't do much about it, but wouldn't it be a matter of taste ? --Velvet 07:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    Composition is sometimes indeed a matter of taste until you have elements that you perceive als disturbing. To me it isn't a QI like this the the shadow + crop spoils it, but we can here other opinions. --Poco a poco 09:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me. Shadows are not a problem for me. --Sebring12Hrs 06:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The shadow is distracting. If the shadow is cropped out, it may be a QI. --Tagooty 06:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much foreground that distracts from the object Face-sad.svg. --F. Riedelio 09:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't like the direct frontal lighting, but that's probably more a matter of personal taste with such architectural photos. Technically, the photo seems to be okay. The shadow can be easily cut off by a potential subsequent user, if it bothers them. --Smial 10:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flor_de_Orquidea.jpg[edit]

Flor de Orquidea.jpg

  • Nomination Epidendrum secundum, orchid flower that has the shape of a crucifix. --Cbrescia 14:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry! Nothing sharp. --Steindy 20:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Sharp enough for me, perhaps due to my glasses. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 21:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not sure. How big is each flower? Also, the sky seems too dark in places. It was 10:30 on May 6. -- Ikan Kekek 06:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definitely no QI, upscaled, overprocessed, lacking sharpness --Poco a poco 11:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 13:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tusker_Elephant_Bath2_Nagarhole_Kabini_Apr22_D72_23843.jpg[edit]

Tusker Elephant Bath2 Nagarhole Kabini Apr22 D72 23843.jpg

  • Nomination Tusker sprays self in Kabini (2 of 3). Elephas maximus indicus, Nagarhole Nat'l Park, Karnataka, --Tagooty 03:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lovely tusks, but blurred image --Charlesjsharp 09:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small, speedy decline. -- Ikan Kekek 06:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Charlesjsharp and Ikan Kekek: Sorry, I uploaded a lowres file by mistake. Please review the new hires image. --Tagooty 08:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is motion blur, agree with Charles here --Poco a poco 11:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 07:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Safari_Vehicles_Nagarhole_ZoneA_Apr22_R16_05989.jpg[edit]

Safari Vehicles Nagarhole ZoneA Apr22 R16 05989.jpg

  • Nomination Safari vehicles waiting for a tiger, Gopaladevaragudi Tank, Nagarhole Tiger Reserve, Karnataka, India. --Tagooty 03:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not in focus or poor quality camera - see the writing on the safari vehicle --Charlesjsharp 09:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 13:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Handorf_Bäckerstraße_09_001_2022_06_03.jpg[edit]

Handorf Bäckerstraße 09 001 2022 06 03.jpg

  • Nomination Barn in Handorf (Lower Saxony), view from south--F. Riedelio 09:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry! Overall heavy chromatic noise. --Steindy 18:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Okay now, good quality. --Steindy 19:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • New version uploaded. Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 06:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Still a little noisy in the shadows but much better and acceptable. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Steindy 19:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plain_tiger_(Danaus_chrysippus_chrysippus)_Phi_Phi.jpg[edit]

Plain tiger (Danaus chrysippus chrysippus) Phi Phi.jpg

  • Nomination Plain tiger (Danaus chrysippus chrysippus) --Charlesjsharp 21:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient DoF -- blurring at various places. --Tagooty 03:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]