Commons:Quality images candidates

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 December 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 December 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 December 27 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]] 12:08, 27 December 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


December 27, 2023 edit

December 26, 2023 edit

December 25, 2023 edit

December 24, 2023 edit

December 23, 2023 edit

December 22, 2023 edit

December 21, 2023 edit

December 20, 2023 edit

December 19, 2023 edit

December 18, 2023 edit

December 17, 2023 edit

December 16, 2023 edit

December 14, 2023 edit

December 13, 2023 edit

December 12, 2023 edit

December 11, 2023 edit

December 10, 2023 edit

December 8, 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:Hospital_General_de_La_Rioja_in_Logrono_(1).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Hospital General de La Rioja in Logrono, La Rioja, Spain. --Tournasol7 05:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree. It is way too dark, it has a slight blue tint, and the building is leaned outward (though only by a few pixels). Should be easy to fix though. (Seems that my original comment was lost due add-in malfunction or editing conflict.) --Plozessor 08:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Light is dull, but I think it's quite acceptable for a cloudy day. I don't see the perspective issue. Lines seem to be vertical to me. --Sebring12Hrs 12:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Gebänderte_Prachtlibelle_am_Main-Altarm_bei_Viereth_2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Banded demoiselle in nature reserve near Viereth --Plozessor 05:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose nothing sharp enough. shutter speed too low? Framing not great --Charlesjsharp 09:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Ναός_Αγίου_Νικολάου,_Κάρυστος_7768.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The church of Agios Nicholaos in Karystos. --C messier 15:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Sky is grainy and perspective correction looks exaggerated --Imehling 11:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support May a bit exaggerated, but let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 00:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Picture itself is good. PC is borderline, I'd suggest to stretch the image a bit horizontally to make it look more natural, and to have the spot with realistic proportions in the middle instead of the ground. --Plozessor 05:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks quite unnatural, sorry -- Екатерина Борисова 06:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The photo is slightly overexposed, the detail has been lost in some very bright areas. This should be corrected. The noise in the sky is insignificant at a normal viewing distance, you have to zoom in considerably to find it disturbing. Note: If you only have 8-bit colour depth, and unfortunately JPG only has 8 bits per colour channel, a small amount of noise helps to prevent the dreaded banding in soft colour gradients. The perspective correction has indeed been exaggerated a little, but I doubt that a change would significantly improve the image impression. Extreme wide-angle lenses produce unusual views by their very nature, but if you also shift them digitally for the purpose of forced verticalisation, it often becomes absurd. --Smial 09:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

File:View_of_Mont_Blanc_from_Grand_Ballon.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View of Mont Blanc from Grand Ballon over a distance of 231 km --Milseburg 15:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Could be a VI, but not QI IMO --Tagooty 03:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Tagooty: Are there any quality issues to fix? --Milseburg 22:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Lacks detail, not fixable IMO. --Tagooty 06:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Tagooty: Mh. I uploaded a new version with less NR. I hope there is more detail. But notice, the resolution is rather high and the distances also. The air was clear in the high layers, but hazy in the low ones. There are often refractions in between. In my opinion, the far mountains can be recognized well. Good enough for QI. --Milseburg 22:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Question I want to ask for further opinions. --Milseburg 20:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry, but IMO this has too much noise and too little detail in the forest. Scaled down to 5 MP it's almost ok, but . almost. Given that it was taken with an α7R at ISO 100 and f/5 with 1/400 s exposure, it might be possible to improve the quality with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 06:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong   Support. There is no visible noise if viewed in "normal" distance resp. enlargement. You need to zoom in or print the image two meters wide to find some LOW noise. Probably stopping down to f/8 could have achieved a minimal better sharpness in some nearby details, the little blur in the far distance is clearly caused by athmospheric effects, and the rather low detail contrast, which is unavoidable in such lighting. A well composed and well exposed landscape photo with realistic colours. --Smial 17:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Smial --GoldenArtists 19:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --GoldenArtists (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Close_Wing_Basking_of_Symphaedra_nais_(Forster,_1771)_-_Baronet_WLB_DSC_2743a.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Close Wing Basking of Symphaedra nais (Forster, 1771) - Baronet--TAPAN1412 14:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Ok --Poco a poco 17:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too much obscured behind leaf --Charlesjsharp 20:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Weak because of the image quality itself. Leaf is IMO not an issue. --Plozessor 11:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination) edit

  • Tue 19 Dec → Wed 27 Dec
  • Wed 20 Dec → Thu 28 Dec
  • Thu 21 Dec → Fri 29 Dec
  • Fri 22 Dec → Sat 30 Dec
  • Sat 23 Dec → Sun 31 Dec
  • Sun 24 Dec → Mon 01 Jan
  • Mon 25 Dec → Tue 02 Jan
  • Tue 26 Dec → Wed 03 Jan
  • Wed 27 Dec → Thu 04 Jan