Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎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 February 24 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]] 13:25, 24 February 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 • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

February 24, 2017[edit]

February 23, 2017[edit]

February 22, 2017[edit]

February 21, 2017[edit]

February 20, 2017[edit]

February 19, 2017[edit]

February 18, 2017[edit]

February 17, 2017[edit]

February 16, 2017[edit]

February 15, 2017[edit]

February 14, 2017[edit]

February 13, 2017[edit]

February 10, 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:Biswas_Ras_Mancha.jpg[edit]

Biswas Ras Mancha.jpg

  • Nomination Ras Mancha near the Biswas Bari of Cossipore. By User:DeepanjanGhosh --Sumitsurai 11:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs some perspective correction. --A.Savin 16:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now -A.Savin 01:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 13:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-02-03_Julia_Taubitz_by_Sandro_Halank–1.jpg[edit]

2017-02-03 Julia Taubitz by Sandro Halank–1.jpg

  • Nomination Julia Taubitz beim HELABA Nationscup der Damen in Oberhof 2017 --Sandro Halank 20:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The main subject is sharp enough, but the photo's composition is unfortunately ruined by the cut man behind her. Sorry. --W.carter 20:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support despite the guy in the background. --Palauenc05 21:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree with cart: The cut-off guy is essentially a photobomb, way too distracting. -- Ikan Kekek 02:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others.--Peulle 07:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Rio_di_San_Basilio_tramonto_a_Venezia.jpg[edit]

Rio di San Basilio tramonto a Venezia.jpg

  • Nomination The Rio di San Basilio canal in Venice at dawn. --Moroder 12:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I will leave others to judge as the motion blur is quite disturbing to me, but the category red link needs fixing, that's for sure.--Peulle 12:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Fixed category. The motion blur is a matter of taste, in the meanwile I have dozens of QI pictures of Venice with these settings. Thanks for the comments --Moroder 19:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Walking people are blurring too much for me. Why not a shorter exposure time, a higher ISO-value, a bit lower f-value? --Michielverbeek 18:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't mind the blurry people. Juliancolton 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As per Juliancolton --Cvmontuy 16:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Peulle 11:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Mallnitz_Altes_Tauernhaus_01.jpg[edit]

Mallnitz Altes Tauernhaus 01.jpg

  • Nomination Altes Tauernhaus (2,380 metres (7,810 ft)) in the Tauern Valley near Mallnitz, High Tauern National Park, Carinthia --Uoaei1 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but not sharp enough --PtrQs 03:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • New version available, lets discuss --Uoaei1 05:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO sharp enough for good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Moroder 15:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question -- and how do we read the QI-guidelines [1]: 'Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality).' Here it was 17 -> 9,5 MB --PtrQs (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • haahh, it's the damn pixelpeepers! --Moroder 21:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • thank you for this very useful hint. So if everybody's happy with that pic, I won't persist in any standards Shade.png --PtrQs (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Kraaijenbergse Plassen, ophaalbrug foto10 2017-02-15 13.06.jpg[edit]

Kraaijenbergse Plassen, ophaalbrug foto10 2017-02-15 13.06.jpg

  • Nomination Kraaijenbergse Plassen (near Cuijk)-NL, drawing bridge --Michielverbeek 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Image needs perspective correction. Right side of the image is tilted CW. --Halavar 21:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well, I can`t detect any perspective irregularity. Thus for me it is of good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See image at full size - structures are leaning to the right (I left a note). Problem is easy to fix. --Halavar 09:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not so sure that it's leaning in because the house on the right and the caravans don't seem so. For me it's OK. --Basotxerri 14:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment User:Halavar, User:Johann Jaritz and User:Basotxerri thanks for comments, --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 14:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Haus-Nordfassade,_2017,_Oetztaler_Str._23,_München.jpg[edit]

Haus-Nordfassade, 2017, Oetztaler Str. 23, München.jpg

  • Nomination Modern residental house in Munich --Lucasbosch 10:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 13:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. I can´t understand the composition. Too much sky and only a part of the building? --Milseburg 20:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition is certainly strange, with the slanty building and the plane looking as if it's diving headlong into its side, but weird doesn't mean bad quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The crop doesn't fit to the description. --Palauenc05 21:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not? We see part of the facade. -- Ikan Kekek 00:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:29._Ulica_-_Circus_Ferus_-_Serce_Polski_-_20160707_1304.jpg[edit]

29. Ulica - Circus Ferus - Serce Polski - 20160707 1304.jpg

  • Nomination Actor of Circus Ferus theatre in the show "Heart of Poland" at 29. ULICA – The International Festival of Street Theatres in Kraków --Jakubhal 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight for me, Vanoot59 17:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not for me, I think the crop is fine. Let's discuss.--Peulle 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree with Vanoot59: The top crop is too tight and makes me feel like it's pushing the man down. -- Ikan Kekek 23:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Crop is good enough for Q1. It would have been different if this man would have had a lot of hair --Michielverbeek 07:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works as far as QI is concerned. --W.carter 22:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 22:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Graureiher_P2170099-PS.jpg[edit]

Graureiher P2170099-PS.jpg

  • Nomination Gray heron on the roof --Ermell 11:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Halavar 11:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too soft. Charlesjsharp 19:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - In view of the size of the file, I agree with Charles. -- Ikan Kekek 23:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK and QI --Milseburg 08:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. A bit more contrast would be better. But good for QI. -- Spurzem 12:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please add location, corresponding category. --A.Savin 02:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 13:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Thu 16 Feb → Fri 24 Feb
Fri 17 Feb → Sat 25 Feb
Sat 18 Feb → Sun 26 Feb
Sun 19 Feb → Mon 27 Feb
Mon 20 Feb → Tue 28 Feb
Tue 21 Feb → Wed 01 Mar
Wed 22 Feb → Thu 02 Mar
Thu 23 Feb → Fri 03 Mar
Fri 24 Feb → Sat 04 Mar