Commons:Quality images candidates

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

Skip to nominations
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska
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 is 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, 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 July 2015 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]] 22:25, 29 July 2015 (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.

July 29, 2015[edit]

July 28, 2015[edit]

July 27, 2015[edit]

July 26, 2015[edit]

July 25, 2015[edit]

July 24, 2015[edit]

July 23, 2015[edit]

July 21, 2015[edit]

July 20, 2015[edit]

July 19, 2015[edit]

July 17, 2015[edit]

July 16, 2015[edit]

July 13, 2015[edit]

July 03, 2015[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:Temple_of_Apollo,_Didyma_01.jpg[edit]

Temple of Apollo, Didyma 01.jpg

  • Nomination Temple of Apollo in Didyma, Turkey --Bgag 14:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too overprocessed, oversharpened. Please try to reprocess from the Raw-Original. --Hubertl 15:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Not done in over a week --Daniel Case 15:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would like to have another opinion. --Bgag 03:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversharpened. Good shot otherwise, but in a current state it's sub-standard. --SkywalkerPL 21:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 17:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Temple_of_Apollo,_Didyma_02.jpg[edit]

Temple of Apollo, Didyma 02.jpg

  • Nomination Temple of Apollo in Didyma, Turkey --Bgag 14:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too overprocessed, oversharpened. Please try to reprocess from the Raw-Original. --Hubertl 15:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Not done in over a week --Daniel Case 15:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would like to have another opinion. --Bgag 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose badly oversharpened. Good shot otherwise, but in a current state it's sub-standard. --SkywalkerPL 21:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 17:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Ballon PH-HOS van Nissan op de Jaarlijkse Friese ballonfeesten in Joure 01.jpg[edit]

Ballon PH-HOS van Nissan op de Jaarlijkse Friese ballonfeesten in Joure 01.jpg

  • Nomination Balloon PH HOS Nissan on the Hot Air Balloon Festival in Joure province of Friesland in the Netherlands.
    Famberhorst 04:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, nice picture, but unfortunately out of focus. --Code 05:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Question: is the balloon not sharp, or just the passenger compartment?
Famberhorst 15:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The balloon IMO. --Code 21:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not out of focus. It's diffraction. f/11 at 18Mpx APS-C sensor. It could easily be shot at f/5.6 --SkywalkerPL 21:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. -- KTC 23:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Additionally I think it should be a little brighter overall. --Code 05:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Slightly brighter. Thank you.--Famberhorst 16:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Bulgarian_folk_dancers_and_musicians_in_Brussels_cropped.JPG[edit]

Bulgarian folk dancers and musicians in Brussels cropped.JPG

  • Nomination Bulgarian folk dancers after a performance in Brussels. (another version of this image (before cropping) was nominated a few days ago) --Tropcho 14:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It doesn´t make sense to crop an already promoted picture to get a second quality image from the same source. --Hubertl 15:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm aware of a rule that says that there cannot be two featured versions of the same image (only the better version retains featured status). Is there a similar rule for quality images? Tropcho 15:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a crop is significantly bringing out a detail or is giving another meaning to the photo, then I could accept the extract as a new photo. But here, it is just a cut of few pixels on top and on bottom. This should not be the new approach of adding more QI to Commons imo. --Cccefalon 06:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 04:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Phyteuma, Ariège, France.JPG[edit]

Phyteuma, Ariège, France.JPG

  • Nomination Phyteuma, Ariège, France --Rorolinus 09:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed, sorry. --Cccefalon 10:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagre. Imo it is QI --Moroder 11:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cccefalon is always right--Livioandronico2013 12:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed, bad DoF. --SkywalkerPL 21:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Lotus corniculatus, Ariège, France.JPG[edit]

Lotus corniculatus, Ariège, France.JPG

  • Nomination Lotus corniculatus, Ariège, France --Rorolinus 20:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Atamari 22:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but this is too noisy, maybe over processed. --Hockei 13:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think, it´s acceptable as it is. --Hubertl 16:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's good. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not understandable that these noisiness does not lead to the devaluation. You can see the artefacts most clearly at the bottom. It could be a much better work. You must take your time for this. As it is it is not QI even against other opinions. --Hockei 07:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 04:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal_Bahnhof_Dornap-Hahnenfurth_0012.jpg[edit]

Wuppertal Bahnhof Dornap-Hahnenfurth 0012.jpg

  • Nomination Bahnhof Dornap-Hahnenfurth, Wuppertal --Atamari 18:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 23:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really QI? Perspective correction? CAs at the trees top left. It's fixable.--XRay 16:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's not an interesting image but QI for me. I think it needs no perspective correction and the slight CAs are negligible. -- Spurzem 16:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 04:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal_Bahnhof_Loh_0024.jpg[edit]

Wuppertal Bahnhof Loh 0024.jpg

  • Nomination Historischer Bahnhof Wuppertal-Loh --Atamari 18:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 05:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry. The image needs perspective correction and noise reduction. The roof at the left is disturbing, the car and the other objects in front of the house too. May be some issues were fixable.--XRay 16:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 06:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Mairie d' Hellemmes-Lille.jpg[edit]

Mairie d' Hellemmes-Lille.jpg

  • Nomination Mairie d'Hellemmes-Lille Nord.- France.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 08:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, no QI, artifacts (oversharpening? compression?) and picture looks distored (shouldn't the clock be round?) --Tsungam 07:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think, the clock can´t be round from this position, IMO the artefacts are fixable, also the slight perspective distortion --Hubertl 07:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done thank you for your advices. The artefacts are fixed, and the slight perspective distortion corrected.- --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 20:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject cover by tree, barrel distortion, seems to be overexposed and... overprocessed? Or is it just camera that produces such an oddly noisy and undetailed images at ISO 100? Hard to tell, but it really doesn't look as good as it should have at ISO 100. --SkywalkerPL (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Sainte-Mère-Eglise church paratrooper.jpg[edit]

Sainte-Mère-Eglise church paratrooper.jpg

  • Nomination Under a rainy weather, the church of Sainte-Mère-Eglise, Manche, Normandy, France.The paratrooper represents John Steele (paratrooper) (82nd US Airborne Division), who landed here at midnight, june the 6th, 1944.--Jebulon 08:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Interesting but, if I would have taken the picture, you would comment "bad light conditions" n'est pas? ,-) --Moroder 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Non mon cher ami. "Bad weather conditions" is not "Bad light conditions", like some of "contre jour", or "sun facing" pictures. N'est-ce pas ?--Jebulon 19:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Conceptually speaking, I don't see the difference. Bad weather conditions: you go back after checking the weather forecast. "Contre jour": you get up early in the morning or come back later. N'est-ce pas? :-)) --Moroder 21:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Still pas d'accord. 'Bad lighting conditions' makes always a "not QI". 'Bad weather conditions' can makes a QI, sun is not a mandatory. Conceptually speaking, bien sûr.:))--Jebulon 20:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

    I'd like to see some other's opinion, cheers --Moroder 07:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Moroder has asked for additional opinions. --Hubertl 23:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy,unsharp expecially on the left --Livioandronico2013 21:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Livioandronico2013 21:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

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