Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 January 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 January 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 January 03 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[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]] 11:22, 3 January 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


January 3, 2023[edit]

January 2, 2023[edit]

January 1, 2023[edit]

December 31, 2022[edit]

December 30, 2022[edit]

December 29, 2022[edit]

December 28, 2022[edit]

December 27, 2022[edit]

December 26, 2022[edit]

December 25, 2022[edit]

December 24, 2022[edit]

December 23, 2022[edit]

December 22, 2022[edit]

December 21, 2022[edit]

December 18, 2022[edit]

December 13, 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".



File:Char-siu_pork_salad_-_Oriental_cuisine.jpg[edit]

Char-siu pork salad - Oriental cuisine.jpg

  • Nomination Char-siu pork salad. By User:Sarkar Sayantan --Bodhisattwa 18:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DoF is too low IMHO --Poco a poco 18:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. Shallow field of depth is standard in modern food photography. --Frank Schulenburg 20:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A shallow DoF would be fine but here I think it's gone too far in the other direction. Besides, not even the focal point is sharp here.--Peulle 07:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Elsteraue-Draschwitz,_lagere_school_Dm094_85726_IMG_3524_2022-08-13_17.17.jpg[edit]

Elsteraue-Draschwitz, lagere school Dm094 85726 IMG 3524 2022-08-13 17.17.jpg

  • Nomination Draschwitz in Sachsen Anhalt , primary school --Michielverbeek 07:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Grunpfnul 10:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, but it's too noisy IMO. --Tournasol7 08:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support At this resolution, I think the amount of noise is acceptable. -- Ikan Kekek 08:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Yellow_Asteraceae_Idukki_Kerala_Dec22_A7C_04789.jpg[edit]

Yellow Asteraceae Idukki Kerala Dec22 A7C 04789.jpg

  • Nomination Yellow wildflower (unidentified Asteraceae), Idukki, Kerala, India --Tagooty 04:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 04:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. Insufficient ID. Generally, the genus should be known. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agreed. Excellent photo, though. -- Ikan Kekek 08:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The daisy family has >1,500 genera. This specimen was growing wild on the verge of a road. I am consulting a botanist and hope to get a more specific ID soon. --Tagooty 04:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Vorderrheinbrücke at Waltensburg-Vuorz, railway station 22-09-2022. (d.j.b) 04.jpg[edit]

Vorderrheinbrücke at Waltensburg-Vuorz, railway station 22-09-2022. (d.j.b) 04.jpg

  • Nomination View from the Vorderrheinbrücke of the Vorderrhein downstream.
    --Famberhorst 06:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not that sharp and confusing description. --MB-one 16:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    The description is: "Waltensburg/Vuorz, railway station. View from the Vorderrheinbrücke of the Vorderrhein downstream." What's wrong with that?--Famberhorst 06:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Because it doesn't show the railway station. If you retitle it "View from the Vorderrheinbrücke of the Vorderrhein downstream" and then include in your file description that that bridge is at the Waltensburg/Vuorz Railway Station, things will be clear. -- Ikan Kekek 09:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. file name and description changed.Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 17:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bony_de_la_Pica_(3).jpg[edit]

Bony de la Pica (3).jpg

  • Nomination Bony de la Pica (2405 m) in Sant Julia de Loria/Andorra parish, Andorra. --Tournasol7 05:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sadly a bit too dark. --SHB2000 05:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I disagree. This is the dust, so low-key is natural here. --Tournasol7 05:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed. A polarisation filter could have helped too --Grunpfnul 10:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for this time of the day.--Ermell 10:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support by Ermell --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's blue hour, so it is expected that it will be overall dark. --C messier 19:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tekniska_museet,_Stockholm_(P1090641).jpg[edit]

Tekniska museet, Stockholm (P1090641).jpg

  • Nomination Putto with telephone in the Swedish Museum of Technology --MB-one 09:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose harsh flashlight shadows and even then slight underexposure --Grunpfnul 09:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review. Pushed the exposure a bit. The shadows are not distracting IMO. Please discuss. --MB-one 16:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 09:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me.--Ermell 10:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 10:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pfälzerhütte_(valo139).jpg[edit]

Pfälzerhütte (valo139).jpg

  • Nomination The Pfälzerhütte in Liechtenstein seen from the west --Valo139 00:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Discussion
    Nice POV but the lack of resolution :/ --Grunpfnul 09:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    If it's too bad, please decline it. Sadly I don't have a higher resolution version. --Valo139 10:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lack of resolution --Grunpfnul 10:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. I don't agree with the decline-reason. The resolution is okay here in my eyes. Maybe a larger image of the hut is meant. But the composition shown is also okay in my opinion. Maybe it lacks a bit sharpness, but overall good enough for QI, I think. --Milseburg 13:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There's a little posterization in the sky, though. You might consider smoothing out the change to darker tones in the upper part. -- Ikan Kekek 19:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Milseburg.--Ermell 10:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. A little soft, a little overprocessed, but neither is really annoying when printing up to A4 size. We have to accept that phones nowadays deliver acceptable quality in good light conditions and sufficient for QI. -- Smial 13:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Palmenhaus_Schönbrunn_at_Schönbrunn_Palace_in_Vienna,_Austria-side_PNr°1002.jpg[edit]

Palmenhaus Schönbrunn at Schönbrunn Palace in Vienna, Austria-side PNr°1002.jpg

  • Nomination The Palmenhaus Schönbrunn at Schönbrunn Palace in Vienna, Austria --D-Kuru 22:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Promotion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeHaze, image tilts to the right --Grunpfnul 09:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    Pictogram-voting question.svg Question I get what you mean by haze, but I can't really see what you mean with it in this image. I have reduced the blue reflections in the windows because they looked too unnatural to me. I have added some highlight compression because the sky would have been an area with clipped highlights instead. This may can make the image look a bit sallow, but I wouldn't see it as haze. I also don't think it tilts to the right. I took the entrance and the roof structure directly above it and made sure that it's aligned to a vertical guide. I tried to align different parts of the building to some guide, but because of the buildings curved hull, I couldn't find a single building element that would not cause other parts to look skew --D-Kuru 10:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I uploaded a new version of the file --D-Kuru 16:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Corrected version looks good - thank you --Grunpfnul 21:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Grunpfnul, you can't vote against and for a nomination. Cross out your opposing vote by using <s> and then </s>. Also, please be aware that you can discuss nominations by simply posting a comment without a vote. -- Ikan Kekek 23:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Peulle 11:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Appenweier,_toren_van_de_Sankt_Michaelkirche_IMG_1896_2022-05-19_12.32.jpg[edit]

Appenweier, toren van de Sankt Michaelkirche IMG 1896 2022-05-19 12.32.jpg

  • Nomination Appenweier-Germany, churchtower (Sankt Michaelkirche) --Michielverbeek 22:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Weird halo on the left side of the roof and bottom left of the tower. Thought it was the cloud at first but it definitely extend on the building. --Gyrostat 10:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:A_caterpillar_of_Jamides_bochus_(Stoll,_1782)_-_Dark_Cerulean_WLB.jpg[edit]

A caterpillar of Jamides bochus (Stoll, 1782) - Dark Cerulean WLB.jpg

  • Nomination A caterpillar of Jamides bochus (Stoll, 1782) - Dark Cerulean. By User:Anitava Roy --Bodhisattwa 18:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support OK quality for QI, but poor composition for a studio shot. Easy to use more natural background --Charlesjsharp 23:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose although the background may be natural, it looks unusual and unnatural to me. --SHB2000 23:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 10:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Siknäs_Bootshafen_Nachtaufnahme-20140722-RM-025039.jpg[edit]

Siknäs Bootshafen Nachtaufnahme-20140722-RM-025039.jpg

  • Nomination Night shot from Siknäs boat harbor --Ermell 09:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too dark, sorry. --SHB2000 01:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Better after the correction. I suggest in correctible issues, like exposure, to ask a correction in the form of a comment instead of declining. --C messier 23:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
    @SHB2000: ✓ Done new version.--Ermell 10:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Ermell: I don't know how I missed your ping, but LGTM. Symbol support vote.svg Support. --SHB2000 08:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pings don't work on this page; that's why. -- Ikan Kekek 19:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Mon 26 Dec → Tue 03 Jan
  • Tue 27 Dec → Wed 04 Jan
  • Wed 28 Dec → Thu 05 Jan
  • Thu 29 Dec → Fri 06 Jan
  • Fri 30 Dec → Sat 07 Jan
  • Sat 31 Dec → Sun 08 Jan
  • Sun 01 Jan → Mon 09 Jan
  • Mon 02 Jan → Tue 10 Jan
  • Tue 03 Jan → Wed 11 Jan