Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations
Quality images logo.svg

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 July 2022.
  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 July 2022.
  • 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 19 2022 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[edit]

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]] 13:13, 19 July 2022 (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

July 19, 2022[edit]

July 18, 2022[edit]

July 17, 2022[edit]

July 16, 2022[edit]

July 15, 2022[edit]

July 14, 2022[edit]

July 13, 2022[edit]

July 12, 2022[edit]

July 11, 2022[edit]

July 10, 2022[edit]

July 9, 2022[edit]

July 8, 2022[edit]

July 7, 2022[edit]

July 6, 2022[edit]

July 5, 2022[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:Lynk_&_Co_01_PHEV_1X7A0309.jpg[edit]

Lynk & Co 01 PHEV 1X7A0309.jpg

  • Nomination Lynk & Co 01 PHEV in Böblingen.--Alexander-93 10:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. No good quality because the upper part is too bright und the background is distracting. -- Spurzem 12:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
    I agree it's too bright, but perhaps that's an easy thing to fix? Disagree that the background is distracting. --Mike Peel 17:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
    I uploaded a new version.--Alexander-93 08:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support the new version looks better. Thanks. Mike Peel 18:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amazed how low the requirements for QI of automobiles have become. -- Spurzem 13:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't want to give a rating, but at least a comment. In my opinion, the background is too bumpy and lacks space around the car. That may also be personal taste. --XRay 15:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. These parking lot images are all horrible, sorry. --Smial 16:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral it's overexposed (hopefully fixable). The composition is not FP worthy but fine for QI. --MB-one 11:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piazzale_Michelangelo_in_Florence.jpg[edit]

Piazzale Michelangelo in Florence.jpg

  • Nomination Piazzale Michelangelo in Florence --Wikibusters 15:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition, too much asphalt --Sailko 19:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC))
    Now Sailko? Thank you --Wikibusters 22:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Big improvement and good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 02:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
    Poor composition, but completly in focus. I don't know... --Sebring12Hrs 05:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportgood quality for me, photo not easy from that point, also because of the intense traffic that is generally there.undefined 10:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)PROPOLI87undefined 10:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castle_of_Annecy_06.jpg[edit]

Castle of Annecy 06.jpg

  • Nomination Castle of Annecy, Haute-Savoie, France. --Tournasol7 15:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sadly the tower is partially blurred by the fog --MB-one 15:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Being blurred by fog is perfectly OK. Why are pictures of views in fog a problem? -- Ikan Kekek 16:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Fog adds something to the composition --Michielverbeek 17:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per others. --Smial 11:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wikibusters 22:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kloster_Limburg_-_Bad_Dürkheim_12.jpg[edit]

Kloster Limburg - Bad Dürkheim 12.jpg

  • Nomination Refectory, Limburg Abbey, Bad Dürkheim, Germany. --Llez 05:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion Good composition, but it looks a bit oversharpened to me --Michielverbeek 05:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    CA at the right side and a spot in the sky should be fixed. --Ermell 06:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    All ✓ Done --Llez 07:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --N. Johannes 11:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    [reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Still some blue fringes left. Sorry. --Ermell 21:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSorry, per Ermell. --Hillopo2018 06:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok now.--Ermell 14:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done I cropped the part with the blue fringes --Llez 06:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 17:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support a bit oversaturated. --Smial 12:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wikibusters 22:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Borey-A_class_SSBN.svg[edit]

Borey-A class SSBN.svg

  • Nomination Silhouette of russian Borei-A class SSBN (project 955A). K-549 «Knyaz Vladimir» --Mike1979 Russia 05:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
    I understand this campaign of yours as a provocation, for the record. --Poco a poco 08:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
    I understand your review as persecution, for the record. And you didn't answer my questions in previos nomination. --Mike1979 Russia 09:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
    And your review violates not only COM:QIC where not place for politic but COM:GOODFAITH too. Please, review my own work no politic. --Mike1979 Russia 14:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see no need for a sinister motive behind the accumulation of submarines in non-photo QIs. And they are not all Russian btw. But I generally find it annoying when people nominate huge amounts of similar images. In my view it would be good manners to nominate a few images pars pro toto. --Watchduck 20:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    Many users nominate five images of same theme every day. I don't do anything out of the ordinary. --Mike1979 Russia 14:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That was my point, mainly directed at Poco's criticism. What he calls a "campaign" is not more annoying than what sadly seems to be the norm. --Watchduck 17:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
    How do we know these are accurate representations? --Charlesjsharp 11:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    You can compare my drawings with published photos. --Mike1979 Russia 13:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    It would be definitely a good practice to provide that source to be aligned with the Wikipedia policies where the images are used. --Poco a poco 19:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    There are most of photos which I used: Подводные лодки проекта 955 и 955а. But it seems to me that you are nitpicking, because you are not going to check my drawings, but are looking for an excuse to declane them. --Mike1979 Russia 05:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small. --Tournasol7 20:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    It contradicts Commons:Quality images candidates#Resolution --Mike1979 Russia 05:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Tournasol7: How can an SVG be too small? --Watchduck 09:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose simple black drawing. --Hillopo2018 06:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
    This is an outright lie. The complexity of this drawing is several times higher than the best photo on this page.--Mike1979 Russia 06:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support The downvotes by Tournasol7 and Hillopo2018 are obviously in bad faith, so I add my support to compensate this nonsense (although I disapprove of mass nominations like these). --Watchduck 10:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support I find the quality of this silhouette is similar to several SVG of submarines that have been promoted as QI. Per Watchduck, the oppose votes are unjustified. --Tagooty 10:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 20:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graney_class_SSN.svg[edit]

Graney class SSN.svg

Symbol support vote.svg Support I find the quality of this silhouette is similar to several SVG of submarines that have been promoted as QI. This image is used in ~20 wikis including uk.wiki, ru.wiki, en.wiki, etc. Per Watchduck, the oppose votes are unjustified. --Tagooty (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Tagooty.--Ermell 13:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @Mike1979 Russia: Please, do not get demotivated! --Mosbatho 20:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More great work. -- Ikan Kekek 20:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --GRDN711 02:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 20:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graney_class_SSN_885M_variant.svg[edit]

Graney class SSN 885M variant.svg

Symbol support vote.svg Support I find the quality of this silhouette is similar to several SVG of submarines that have been promoted as QI. The 3 images are sufficiently different that each would have taken similar effort to taking a QI photo with a camera. Per Watchduck, the oppose votes are unjustified. --Tagooty 10:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Tagooty.--Ermell 13:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @Mike1979 Russia: Please, do not get demotivated! --Mosbatho 20:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per others. --MB-one 20:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --GRDN711 02:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Too bad part of a mast is cut off in this one. How come? But still quite good. -- Ikan Kekek 03:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 03:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mănăstirea Lainici (by Pudelek).jpg[edit]

Mănăstirea Lainici (by Pudelek).jpg

  • Nomination Church of the Presentation of Mary, Lainici monastery, Romania --Pudelek 11:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfavorable cropping (disturbing element at the right edge of the image), fixable? --F. Riedelio 07:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, geocoding would be nice. --Palauenc05 16:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my support as there is no reaction to my request. --Palauenc05 12:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Palauenc05: I added geocoding, it was fairly easy to find by Google Maps. Thanks. Mike Peel 17:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, and I think the right crop is acceptable because any crop on that side will involve some kind of choice. This crop is just to the right of a shrub. A bit further left could be just to the right of the flowers. Further left could crop out the building on the right but would bisect the flowers. And there's also the question of how much room you want on both sides of the church and how much of the forested hill you want. All in all, this isn't FPC, so let's give a good photo of a good motif some latitude on the crop. -- Ikan Kekek 10:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As far as cropping is concerned, I'm right there with Ikan. But is it possible that the perspective correction was a bit too strong? The column at the bottom left and the column by the building on the right and the vertical edges on the low outbuilding on the left seem to me to tilt slightly outwards. But that could also be due to a barrel distortion of the lens. --Smial 10:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even after a week no reaction, no objections, no explanation of the described shortcomings and also no image revision, therefore oppose. --Smial 16:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. That's my impression too. The pillars are vertical, but the building looks as if it would tilt to the left. -- Spurzem 18:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good to me. Thanks. Mike Peel 17:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me.--Rjcastillo 02:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Mon 11 Jul → Tue 19 Jul
  • Tue 12 Jul → Wed 20 Jul
  • Wed 13 Jul → Thu 21 Jul
  • Thu 14 Jul → Fri 22 Jul
  • Fri 15 Jul → Sat 23 Jul
  • Sat 16 Jul → Sun 24 Jul
  • Sun 17 Jul → Mon 25 Jul
  • Mon 18 Jul → Tue 26 Jul
  • Tue 19 Jul → Wed 27 Jul