Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 rule exclude vector graphics (SVG) and images computer generated and constructed using a free licensed source code available in the image 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 January 2017 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]] 18:48, 22 January 2017 (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.
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

January 22, 2017[edit]

January 21, 2017[edit]

January 20, 2017[edit]

January 19, 2017[edit]

January 18, 2017[edit]

January 17, 2017[edit]

January 16, 2017[edit]

January 15, 2017[edit]

January 14, 2017[edit]

January 12, 2017[edit]

January 9, 2017[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:16-11-15-Bahnhof_Glasgow_Central-RR2_7046.jpg[edit]

16-11-15-Bahnhof Glasgow Central-RR2 7046.jpg

  • Nomination Glasgow Central railway station --Ralf Roletschek 23:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Most of the train unsharp --Ermell 08:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • O.k. But weak Symbol support vote.svg Support as I think. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 18:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Roses_House,_Avenida_Paulista,_Brazil.jpg[edit]

Roses House, Avenida Paulista, Brazil.jpg

  • Nomination roses House, Avenida Paulista, Brazil --The Photographer 18:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice compositional idea, quality is acceptable to me. -- Ikan Kekek 22:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The strong noise should be removed IMO --Ermell 22:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 18:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:ISDT_SC-608_front.jpg[edit]

ISDT SC-608 front.jpg

  • Nomination Battery charger for RC use --Lucasbosch 19:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality.not sharp sorry --Cvmontuy 19:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. Probablby somewhat low DOF, but in all other aspects very good quality. --Smial 10:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but for Cvmontuy. For a studio work isn't enought for me --Livioandronico2013 13:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Livioandronico2013 13:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:ISDT_SC-608_output.jpg[edit]

ISDT SC-608 output.jpg

  • Nomination Battery charger for RC use --Lucasbosch 19:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. bad crop sorry --Cvmontuy 19:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. Obvisiously intended composition. --Smial 10:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cvmontuy 13:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Motrice_tramway_monument_-_Gare_de_Laon.jpg[edit]

Motrice tramway monument - Gare de Laon.jpg

  • Nomination Old tramway in Laon --Billy69150 12:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 16:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image can't get the promotion before perspective coorection. See the left side of the image, all vertical lines leans to the right. Please fix that --Halavar 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Halavar -- DerFussi 19:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 18:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:No_Parking_Sign_in_Bagni_di_Lucca_01.jpg[edit]

No Parking Sign in Bagni di Lucca 01.jpg

  • Nomination No Parking Sign at a door in Bagni di Lucca, Italy --Kritzolina 10:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful photograph, good quality. --Slashme 12:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now - please fix chromatic aberrations first. --A.Savin 18:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would you please indicate where are the CA? --Cvmontuy 13:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
On the borders between blue and white. --A.Savin 22:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --A.Savin 15:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Prague 07-2016 View from Powder Tower img3.jpg[edit]

Prague 07-2016 View from Powder Tower img3.jpg

  • Nomination Prague: view from Powder Tower towards Old Town --A.Savin 18:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • The photo in general is quite good, but please talk about the pronounced slant in the road on either side of the block in the foreground. It gives this viewer a very strange feeling. If the slants are accurate, this photo should be promoted right away. -- Ikan Kekek 13:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I didn't quite well understand what's the problem, Maybe you mean the uw-angle distortion, then you're probably right and I cannot do much about it... --A.Savin 17:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
To clarify: The road on the left of the building slants pretty drastically down to the left, and the road on the right of the building slants pretty drastically down to the right. If the roads are in fact level or nearly level, widthwise, I find that distortion too great and distracting to want to promote this picture, but I'd be happy to open it up to consideration at CR. -- Ikan Kekek 19:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose have to agree that the slants in the roads are very distracting from the image overall and too much for me to see a QI in this but CR is always there if you disagree. EoRdE6 06:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree Tons of images with compulsively straightened verticals have been promoted here on com:qic as long as the camera looked upward. Now we have exactly the same effect, but the camera looked downward. Yes, this is ugly in my opinion, but it is not worse than many promoted church towers. --Smial 18:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per my remarks above and EoRdE6. -- Ikan Kekek 21:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I absolutely agree Smial We wave all distorted towers through because imho we overuse the perspective correction in a quite bizarre and obsessive way (what I do not like at all, but its my personal opinion). So we have to accept this as QI as well and accept the correction as an artistic decisison of the photographer. -- DerFussi 12:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 18:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Bystrzyca_Kłodzka,_ratusz,_13.JPG[edit]

Bystrzyca Kłodzka, ratusz, 13.JPG

  • Nomination Town hall in Bystrzyca Kłodzka 1 --Jacek Halicki 09:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 09:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree Top of the building is unsharp, sorry --Cvmontuy 20:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Jacek Halicki, is that improvable? I guess I think it's good enough, anyway, so I give you mild Symbol support vote.svg Support, but if you could improve the top of the building, that would be better. -- Ikan Kekek 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with user Cvmontuy. Sorry Jacek, but he's got right. --Halavar 22:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Sat 14 Jan → Sun 22 Jan
Sun 15 Jan → Mon 23 Jan
Mon 16 Jan → Tue 24 Jan
Tue 17 Jan → Wed 25 Jan
Wed 18 Jan → Thu 26 Jan
Thu 19 Jan → Fri 27 Jan
Fri 20 Jan → Sat 28 Jan
Sat 21 Jan → Sun 29 Jan
Sun 22 Jan → Mon 30 Jan