Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Quality images candidates)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut
COM:QIC
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 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]

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 June 22 2018 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]] 22:57, 22 June 2018 (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.

June 22, 2018[edit]

June 21, 2018[edit]

June 20, 2018[edit]

June 19, 2018[edit]

June 18, 2018[edit]

June 17, 2018[edit]

June 16, 2018[edit]

June 15, 2018[edit]

June 14, 2018[edit]

June 13, 2018[edit]

June 12, 2018[edit]

June 9, 2018[edit]

June 8, 2018[edit]

June 7, 2018[edit]

June 6, 2018[edit]

June 4, 2018[edit]

May 29, 2018[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:Parque_nacional_y_reserva_Denali,_Alaska,_Estados_Unidos,_2017-08-30,_DD_01-06_PAN.jpg[edit]

Parque nacional y reserva Denali, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-30, DD 01-06 PAN.jpg

  • Nomination Denali National Park‎, Alaska, United States --Poco a poco 05:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Only the middle part is sharp enough. I don´t think that is fixable. Sorry. --Ermell 08:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    ✓  New version Poco a poco 11:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Perfect except the right side. But you could crop that out to save the image.--Ermell 06:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    Ok, will have a look again Poco a poco 19:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    ✓  New version --Poco a poco 20:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg  Support Very good now. --Ermell 20:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   ----Ermell (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:2018-06-17_(401)_Mh6_with_Ötscherbär_bevor_Bahnhof_Frankenfels,_Austria.jpg[edit]

2018-06-17 (401) Mh6 with Ötscherbär bevor Bahnhof Frankenfels, Austria.jpg

  • Nomination Mh6 with Ötscherbär bevor Bahnhof Frankenfels, Austria.--GT1976 05:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I'm afraid the train is out of focus. This can be avoided by selecting a shorter shutter speed. --Ermell 05:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose The front of the train is unsharp.--Peulle 07:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per others. --Basotxerri 15:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Squirrel_eating_nuts.png[edit]

Squirrel eating nuts.png

  • Nomination A red squirrel eating nuts. --JKorpimies 14:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Amazing image but sorry it is overexposed --Christian Ferrer 16:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I did not visit this page since several days. I cancel my oppose, thanks you JKorpimies --Christian Ferrer 17:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Thanks for your review! The overexposure should be mostly gone now. Thanks for pointing out the problem :).
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKorpimies (talk • contribs)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment @JKorpimies You should set your nomination to /Discuss once you've fixed the issue that was pointed out or if you disagree with the reviewer. I think the image is of good quality and I would support but it needs better categorization: there is probably a better subcategory within Category:Helsinki and you have to identify the subject as precisely as possible. (also don't forget to sign) --Trougnouf 22:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Thanks for you instructions. This is now in discuss and I put the picture in the category of Category:Sciurus vulgaris in Finland. And now I will not forget to sign :). --JKorpimies 6:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! There was no reason to remove Category:Helsinki as it's not a subcategory of Category:Sciurus vulgaris in Finland and vice versa, so I added Category:Nature of Helsinki. Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Trougnouf 09:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Good quality, and i like this photo Clin Olivier LPB 08:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 05:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Basotxerri 12:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Christusstatue_Temple_Expiatori_del_Sagrat_Cor_Detail.jpg[edit]

Christusstatue Temple Expiatori del Sagrat Cor Detail.jpg

  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg  Question I don't understand the CC0 oppose --Trougnouf 22:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In my eyes a photo under CC0 can't be QI because the license isn't viral. --Ralf Roletschek 11:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I do not see a problem with CC0 or GFDL, but with sharpness and DOF. Top of the statue's head and it's eyes are out of focus. The focal plane is somewhere between the chin and chest. --Smial 20:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Ps: Also burnt highlight at the forehead. Unsharpness visible at 100%, no need to enlarge to see that. --Smial 07:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - The license looks perfect - public domain, what could be better? If this were FPC, I'd object about the unsharpness of the nearest part of the torso, but this is QIC, and I'm surprised anyone doesn't think this is quite acceptable for QI. The head's sharpness is acceptable at 300% of my laptop screen. That's enough. -- Ikan Kekek 08:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support per Ikan. My non-review was focused on whether the focus on the bottom is support-worthy but I didn't even consider that the head itself is sharp enough at 200%. --Trougnouf 10:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support The license is fine - Ralf must have misunderstood something. The focus is on the head so that's OK too.--Peulle 07:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The focus is not on the head, IMO, more "somewhere between the chin and the chest", as Smial says. The head is not blurry, but the sharpness could be better. Not bad enough to oppose, but it's not perfectly sharp at 100%, just 66% maybe (and enough considering the size of the picture). Apart from that, I really don't understand the CC0 problem. Not a valid reason to oppose IMO -- Basile Morin 11:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Thanks for the support and the constructive comments. --A,Ocram 15:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Peulle 14:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

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