Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎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 July 18 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]] 19:24, 18 July 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.

July 18, 2018[edit]

July 17, 2018[edit]

July 16, 2018[edit]

July 15, 2018[edit]

July 14, 2018[edit]

July 13, 2018[edit]

July 12, 2018[edit]

July 11, 2018[edit]

July 10, 2018[edit]

July 09, 2018[edit]

July 08, 2018[edit]

July 07, 2018[edit]

July 06, 2018[edit]

July 04, 2018[edit]

June 30, 2018[edit]

June 26, 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:Нічний_охоронець.jpg[edit]

Нічний охоронець.jpg

  • Nomination Lucanus cervus. By User:84Human84 --Anntinomy 09:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry too unsharp, but I like the principle of this photo. --Olivier LPB 09:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support o.k for me. Not everything has to be sharp in this case. --Ermell 21:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I personally feel that there is too much noise. --GerifalteDelSabana 06:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Clarification: It seems that the "noise" I see is from too much pixel sharpening. Major artifacts that I thought was noise on the beetle. --GerifalteDelSabana 06:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much unsharpness. --Fischer.H 07:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ermell --Sandro Halank 13:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 13:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Вид_на_Бабуган_яйлу_з_Еклізі-Бурун.jpg[edit]

Вид на Бабуган яйлу з Еклізі-Бурун.jpg

  • Nomination Chatyr-Dah, a mountainous massif in Crimea. By User:Vian --Anntinomy 09:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Olivier LPB 09:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perhaps FP, but overprocessed to be QI IMO. Oversaturated... But very nice artistic picture--Lmbuga 17:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose + damaged file/upload --Tsungam 06:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lmbuga and Tsungam. --GerifalteDelSabana 06:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A beautiful Landscape, but no QI for me. --Fischer.H 07:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lmbuga --Sandro Halank 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 13:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Mute_swan_head_from_right.jpg[edit]

Mute swan head from right.jpg

  • Nomination Head of a Mute swan(Cygnus olor) from right. --GPSLeo 16:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough, sorry. --Peulle 17:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If I look at the picture larger than life, blur is actually noticeable, but it is nevertheless a quality image for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Spurzem, but I feel that the front part of the head is a bit blown so that's a BA candidate.svg Weak oppose from me, and a weak support if that is fixed. --GerifalteDelSabana 23:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle --Sandro Halank 19:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 19:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Burg_Landshut_jun_2018_(4).jpg[edit]

Burg Landshut jun 2018 (4).jpg

  • Nomination The castle Burg Landshut in Bernkastel-Kues.--Peulle 23:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough, perhaps because of the haze --Daniel Case 17:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I think I'd like to get some more input on this one, though: considering the camera is 2,9 km away from the target and that we can still see individual stones in the walls despite the slight haze, I'm hard pressed to find anything really technically wrong with it. I have a feeling that this is about as good a long-shot it's possible to get on a hazy day. What do we think, people?--Peulle 19:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good motive, but unfortunately for me no QI. --Fischer.H 11:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Somewhat soft probably due to haze, but "good enough". "De-hazing" would give unnatural colours. --Smial 09:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support, per Smial --Sandro Halank 09:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The blue haze in the air should not exist in a quality image. The positive reviews surprise me. -- Spurzem 20:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support per Smial. I've tried something of the same concept in the past, but it's so hazy here, "dust and dander" is rated on "extreme", haha... --GerifalteDelSabana 06:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support I'm agree whith others. Good picture. Clarity would be better. es: Aumentando la claridad el problema se reduce ---Lmbuga 17:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
New retouched image: File:Burg Landshut jun 2018 (4 retouched).jpg. I think that it's better and QI like the other one--Lmbuga 17:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Wien,_Café_Central_--_2018_--_3092.jpg[edit]

Wien, Café Central -- 2018 -- 3092.jpg

  • Nomination Café Central, Vienna, Austria --XRay 03:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion The sky is blown. --Peulle 16:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    I disagree. Sorry. But the sky isn't blown. It's not every day blue sky. You can see structures in the sky too. --XRay 05:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not blown, just pale. Good enough for QI. --MB-one 12:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ^ --GerifalteDelSabana 05:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per MB-one --Sandro Halank 19:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 07:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 19:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:IMG_Hambacher_Schloss_8284.jpg[edit]

IMG Hambacher Schloss 8284.jpg

  • Nomination Hambacher Schloss - Nationales Denkmal - Europäisches Kulturerbe, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany. --Fischer.H 15:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the moment: perspective correcion necessary --Llez 16:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support bei der Sicht stark nach oben ist eine Verzerrung unangebracht. --Ralf Roletschek 08:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective could be accepted from this camera location, but the image is oversharpened with lots of sharpening artifacts. --Smial 11:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done --Fischer.H 17:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok much better now Symbol support vote.svg Support --Smial 21:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Posterization and sharpening atifacts on the middle tree. -- GerifalteDelSabana 03:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per GerifalteDelSabana --Sandro Halank 12:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Moroder 02:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tsungam 08:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others --Lmbuga 18:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Tsungam 06:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Tue 10 Jul → Wed 18 Jul
Wed 11 Jul → Thu 19 Jul
Thu 12 Jul → Fri 20 Jul
Fri 13 Jul → Sat 21 Jul
Sat 14 Jul → Sun 22 Jul
Sun 15 Jul → Mon 23 Jul
Mon 16 Jul → Tue 24 Jul
Tue 17 Jul → Wed 25 Jul
Wed 18 Jul → Thu 26 Jul
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images_candidates
commons.wikimedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-30
764356
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:6WVPUXVA3EIR4SYZGEVS4GYGY2KHLTLI
<urn:uuid:994110a1-7a43-4f77-8d64-996fe60d7f0b>
2018-07-18T19:25:09Z
208.80.154.224
text/html
sha1:A2RUCTD2NIJ7YTZ33NJOGITPTEB3VVPF
<urn:uuid:6fbfd7e5-62ce-4e68-a57a-52a7c0a94a0c>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images_candidates
response
<urn:uuid:2356fa97-bd31-47d5-91f1-bd5a01caf457>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-143-24-180.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-30
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2018
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf