Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask 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]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

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. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

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.

Grace period and promotion[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first 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 consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2023.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2023.
  • 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 October 12 2023 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 cannot 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

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 03:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms


October 12, 2023[edit]

October 11, 2023[edit]

October 10, 2023[edit]

October 9, 2023[edit]

October 8, 2023[edit]

October 7, 2023[edit]

October 6, 2023[edit]

October 5, 2023[edit]

October 4, 2023[edit]

October 3, 2023[edit]

October 2, 2023[edit]

October 1, 2023[edit]

September 29, 2023[edit]

September 28, 2023[edit]

September 27, 2023[edit]

September 26, 2023[edit]

September 25, 2023[edit]

September 22, 2023[edit]

September 21, 2023[edit]

September 16, 2023[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  Oppose and  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".



File:Lentil_soup,_Berlin_(LRM_20210925_125528).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lentil soup, served in a DB Premium Lounge --MB-one 17:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp --Plozessor 04:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
    • I disagree. It's sufficiently sharp IMO on the focus pane. Please discuss. --MB-one 15:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If I look at the picture from the point of view of "food photography", it can't be a QI at all, because it has an unmotivated focus, unfavorable lighting and a horrible background. As a documentary snapshot one could let it pass, but for that the optical reference to the location is missing. --Smial 10:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

File:0940 NOR Hammerfest town quay and Adolf Henrik Lindstrøm from S V-P.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Town quay and statue of Adolf Henrik Lindholm from SW - Hammerfest, Norway --Virtual-Pano 09:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I think that the detail of the statue is too low due to the bad lighting and seen as the main actor here, I have to decline, sorry --Poco a poco 11:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
     Comment Thks for the review. As the statue is detailed from my point of view, let's ask for more opinions --Virtual-Pano 19:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The lighting is a problem. Another one might be copyright issues; when did the sculptor die? Btw. the name is also wrong.--Peulle 06:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done thanks for the hint I have added the FoP template and the spelling has been corrected
But, since Commons requires that all images be free for commercial use, buildings are the only copyrighted works in Norway for which the FOP exception applies for Commons and here the statue is clearly the main motive. The statue is from 2017 and the artist is very much alive.--ArildV (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  • The statue is too dark. You had no good lighting. -- Spurzem 20:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info I have uploaded a reprocessed version where only the shadow on the front face of the statue has been moderatly brightend @Poco a poco and Peulle: --Virtual-Pano (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  • An improvement, but not in a way I would support, I go for  Neutral and stroke with vote through above Poco a poco 20:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

File:20221020_Clubhaus_des_Lindauer_Segelklubs_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View across a wharf to the clubhouse of sailing club in Lindau --FlocciNivis 08:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --PaestumPaestum 14:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose If the subject is the club house, you should try to find a viewing angle that avoids clutter as much as possible. Some of your other images are better at this - this one, not so. Sorry. --GRDN711 19:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose mainly based on unfavourable composition - Hint if I may: If the masts of the sailing boats are getting cropped (which is perfectly fine imo), why not taking a step forward to get rid of the sign and concrete bollard which is out of focus anyway? Taht way you would get closer to the main object and have less clutter like GRDN711 already mentioned. --Virtual-Pano (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

File:0915_NOR_Hammerfest_Arctic_Princess_V-P.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hammerfest roads --Virtual-Pano 07:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Too shallow DoF for this composition IMO. Only the rock on the right is in focus. --MB-one 12:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
     Comment The rock to the right is several hundred metres away. With 24 mm and f8 on a full frame sensor objects even further away should be well inside DoF. --Virtual-Pano 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for an A4 print, but I would recommend reducing both noise reduction and post sharpening. --Smial 10:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info completly reprocessed version uploaded --Virtual-Pano 20:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support much better now. --MB-one (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 09:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Sankt_Jakob_im_Rosental_Maria_Elend_Schalenstein_26092023_4498.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Offering table at the park north of the pilgrimage church Maria Elend, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Blurry --Plozessor 03:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
     Support I disagree. IMO sharp and good enough. --XRay 03:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @XRay: Thanks for your review. I reduced the noise and uploaded a new version. —- Johann Jaritz 04:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose slightly out of focus, sorry --Virtual-Pano 20:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support By far sharp enough regarding the resolution. Printable to A3 size or even bigger. --Smial 23:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough given that it is a static subject. --Tagooty 04:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO wsharp enough fo9r a QI --Michielverbeek 05:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, some blown whites. --Nino Verde (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Michielverbeek 05:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Ναός_Αγίας_Σοφίας,_Μονεμβασιά_0591.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The west facade of the church of Agia Sofia in Monemvasia. --C messier 17:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose High noise, person in the door --Plozessor 17:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
    This isn't FP for the person in the portal to be an issue. Please discuss. --C messier 19:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Sebring12Hrs 10:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support As long as we are fiddling around with 8-bit JPGs here, a low noise component is always better than merciless denoising, which often enough leads to LEGO plastic-like surfaces and/or posterization. --Smial 23:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 14:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 12:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

File:20221107_Alter_Südfriedhof_München_07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View up to the statue on a grave on the Old Cemetery South in Munich with blur-disks in the background --FlocciNivis 16:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose IMHO, insufficient DOF, as I find the out of focus parts of the statue way too prominent and distracting, feel free to move to discuss though. --C messier 17:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for your feedback. I think the DOF is good enough at least and even facilitates the composition. So I would like to hear some other assessments --FlocciNivis 18:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavourable lighting. Although the idea of a shallow depth of field is not a bad one for this object, the face of the statue is in the shadow and "disappears" in the surroundings. --Smial 23:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. No good lighting. Escpecially the face of the angel is too dark. -- Spurzem 14:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I improved the exposure on the angel statue now. But I understand, if that is not enough to make it a QI. Thank you for the reviews in any case --FlocciNivis 17:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC))

File:Kreta_(GR),_Rethymno,_Motorroller_--_2023_--_8344.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Motor scooter (detail) and helmet in Rethymno, Crete, Greece --XRay 03:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad composition. Sorry, but I do not understand where is what. It will be looks good, if helmet will be put on the mirror of the car. It's not even clear what kind of car brand it is, and why it should be cool at this time. --Kirill Borisenko 20:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The composition may not please everyone. Whether it is bad is another matter. I like the lines, the helmet suitably placed and the certain something (helmet with the "8"). The vehicle in the background has no special meaning. --XRay 05:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. Maybe the image is intended to be a modern work of art or a photo of an abstract sculpture, but I still don't like it enough to vote Pro. It's also too bright at the top left for me. -- Spurzem 16:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose colour noise and too bright in upper left part, sorry --Virtual-Pano 21:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I tried to find colour noise, but I can't. I've improved the photograph and it's hopefully better now. --XRay 04:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfectly OK to me, and I think we should respect the photographer's artistic license unless there's really something clearly wrong with the composition. I respect the points about the brightness and color noise in the highlights, though. -- Ikan Kekek 05:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Kirill Borisenko, QI is not an artistic competition, thus photo subject should be clear. You can ask a question for yourself: Which article can the photo illustrate? --Nino Verde 08:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review. But: What article? Why? It's not a Wikipedia competition. But by the way, there are also numerous articles in the Wikipedias that contain not only documentary photos. We shouldn't just fixate on Wikipedia here. There are many users of the photos outside the Wikimedia world. From the project scope: "makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all" --XRay 11:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this increased fixation on the idea of Commons as merely an adjunct to Wikipedia is troubling. Signed, admin on Wikivoyage. -- Ikan Kekek 17:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • You believe no wikis other than Wikipedia exist? Wikivoyage must be a figment of my imagination. -- Ikan Kekek 15:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO good enough. There is a rule that an image should have some potential value for a wiki. This one might illustrate "helmet" in a wiktionary, just for example. We don't need to debate how likely this is, however. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ikan. The Wikimedia world is much larger than just the Wikipedia world. From my experience, very many images are also used outside the Wikimedia world. This is precisely what should be taken into account. It is by no means a "private archive" if an image is not used in a Wikipedia. But such basic discussions should perhaps not be held here, but for example under Village pump. This also helps to clear up misunderstandings about the project scope. --XRay 11:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlights on the seat and bottom of the helmet, insufficient DoF. --Tagooty 09:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Wed 04 Oct → Thu 12 Oct
  • Thu 05 Oct → Fri 13 Oct
  • Fri 06 Oct → Sat 14 Oct
  • Sat 07 Oct → Sun 15 Oct
  • Sun 08 Oct → Mon 16 Oct
  • Mon 09 Oct → Tue 17 Oct
  • Tue 10 Oct → Wed 18 Oct
  • Wed 11 Oct → Thu 19 Oct
  • Thu 12 Oct → Fri 20 Oct