Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Quality images candidates)
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 • ‎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 April 30 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]] 13:28, 30 April 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

April 30, 2017[edit]

April 29, 2017[edit]

April 28, 2017[edit]

April 27, 2017[edit]

April 26, 2017[edit]

April 25, 2017[edit]

April 24, 2017[edit]

April 23, 2017[edit]

April 22, 2017[edit]

April 21, 2017[edit]

April 20, 2017[edit]

April 19, 2017[edit]

April 17, 2017[edit]

April 15, 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:Karoo_Scrub-Robin_2017_03_24_1598.jpg[edit]

Karoo Scrub-Robin 2017 03 24 1598.jpg

  • Nomination Karoo scrub robin (Cercotrichas coryphaeus) at Sadawa Game Reserve --Alandmanson 13:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please add category on location (for the other pictures too) --A.Savin 10:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK Charlesjsharp 11:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Then Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, since the account "Charlesjsharp" doesn't seem to respect my comments, I ask for CR. It could have been done a less bureaucratic way, a pity. Not this way with me, I'm sorry --A.Savin 13:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Location category added --Alandmanson (talk)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support now. --A.Savin 11:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Charlesjsharp 09:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Removed double vote --A.Savin 11:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 08:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Crombec,_Long-billed_Alan_Manson_2009_10_03_10_29_42_07548.jpg[edit]

Crombec, Long-billed Alan Manson 2009 10 03 10 29 42 07548.jpg

  • Nomination Long-billed crombec, Sylvietta rufescens building a nest at Ngwenya Resort, Mpumalanga, South Africa. --Alandmanson 13:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice. Charlesjsharp 11:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For promotion, please sufficient COM:Categories. --A.Savin 13:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Good picture of the bird, and I will support once A.Savin addresses what categories are lacking that need to be there, because it's not clear to me in this case. -- Ikan Kekek 08:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Location category added --Alandmanson (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now --A.Savin 11:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 08:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Rusty_farm_tool.jpg[edit]

Rusty farm tool.jpg

  • Nomination Rusty farm tool --Bep 11:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Looks fine at 50% reduction --Alandmanson 13:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but I disagree, it's blurred. --A.Savin 10:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --W.carter 08:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Common_palm_forester_(Bebearia_cocalia_cocalia)_female.jpg[edit]

Common palm forester (Bebearia cocalia cocalia) female.jpg

  • Nomination Common palm forester (Bebearia cocalia cocalia) female, Ghana --Charlesjsharp 19:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small. --Peulle 22:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Error, @Peulle:. larger file uploaded. ~~~~
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very good quality indeed, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 08:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good quality --Alandmanson 08:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 08:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Piquero_patiazul_(Sula_nebouxii),_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Cristóbal,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_72.JPG[edit]

Piquero patiazul (Sula nebouxii), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 72.JPG

  • Nomination Blue-footed booby (Sula nebouxii), Punta Pitt, San Cristobal Island, Galapagos Islands, Ecuador --Poco a poco 18:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Ermell 19:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose easily sharp enough but chick overexposed. Charlesjsharp 11:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ✓ New version Poco a poco 11:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 07:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Playa Risco del Paso - Fuerteventura - 01.jpg[edit]

Playa Risco del Paso - Fuerteventura - 01.jpg

  • Nomination Playa Risco del Paso, Fuertevetura --Llez 16:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No, no, ..., yes, yes! :-) --XRay 17:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no no! Rule of thirds! yes yes! Beautiful on eyes and mind.... --RaboKarbakian 15:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, yes, the rule of third is a suggestion/guide not a law. --W.carter 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
So, if not composition, what makes this a QI? -- RaboKarbakian 18:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In this case the foreground is the main part of the photo and it is for me not detailed enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 07:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see a lot of sharpness or detail here ...--Peulle 18:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 07:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Widespread_forester_(Euphaedra_medon)_male.jpg[edit]

Widespread forester (Euphaedra medon medon) male.jpg

  • Nomination Widespread forester (Euphaedra medon medon) male, Ghana --Charlesjsharp 13:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI imo. --ArildV 13:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree; the whole bottom part of the butterfly is out of focus. Honestly, I'm used to seeing much better work from this user.--Peulle 19:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO.--Ermell 07:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Hebes_pink_forester_(Euphaedra_hebes).jpg[edit]

Hebes pink forester (Euphaedra hebes).jpg

  • Nomination Hebes pink forester (Euphaedra hebes), Ghana --Charlesjsharp 13:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not for me, sorry, the DoF is shallow and the top part is out of focus as a result.--Peulle 19:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me.--Ermell 07:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

File:2016-12-15_Sebastian_Gemkow_by_Sandro_Halank.jpg[edit]

2016-12-15 Sebastian Gemkow by Sandro Halank.jpg

  • Nomination Sebastian Gemkow (CDU) --Sandro Halank 21:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks OK. --Peulle 08:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (for now) Sorry, I have a Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question: is this "police photo" really eligible for publishing? Did Mr.Gemkow approve for uploading it on Commons? From my own experience with "Wiki Loves Parliament" (I did it in Berlin back in 2013), such photos are only for identification purposes, and not for publishing. I miss educational value here, unless there are no further photos of this person on Commons; which is not the case. --A.Savin 11:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. What you're saying is that when shooting these projects, the photographer uses these photos for ID purposes so that he can later enter the correct information on the files that are going to be published? It will be interesting to hear the reply of @Sandro Halank:.--Peulle 07:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Sat 22 Apr → Sun 30 Apr
Sun 23 Apr → Mon 01 May
Mon 24 Apr → Tue 02 May
Tue 25 Apr → Wed 03 May
Wed 26 Apr → Thu 04 May
Thu 27 Apr → Fri 05 May
Fri 28 Apr → Sat 06 May
Sat 29 Apr → Sun 07 May
Sun 30 Apr → Mon 08 May