Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
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]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

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 unless the photographer is a Commons user. (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 February 2025.
  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 February 2025.
  • 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 February 08 2025 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]] 01:43, 8 February 2025 (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
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


February 8, 2025

[edit]

February 7, 2025

[edit]

February 6, 2025

[edit]

February 5, 2025

[edit]

February 4, 2025

[edit]

February 3, 2025

[edit]

February 2, 2025

[edit]

February 1, 2025

[edit]

January 31, 2025

[edit]

January 30, 2025

[edit]

January 29, 2025

[edit]

January 28, 2025

[edit]

January 27, 2025

[edit]

January 26, 2025

[edit]

January 24, 2025

[edit]

January 21, 2025

[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:Zhovkva_Castle_RB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castle in Zhovkva, Lviv region, Ukraine. --Rbrechko 01:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This has yellow halos on the right side of the building elements, not sure where they are coming from. Also not too sharp overall. --Plozessor 04:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I tried to fix this and uploaded new version. --Rbrechko 02:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry, now it has a lot of CA in the right part (wide purple fringes on the left side of edges and wide green fringes on the right side of edges), and overall it's still too grainy and not sharp enough. --Plozessor 05:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 08:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

File:46-251-0096_Khyriv_College_RB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jesuit College in Khyriv, Lviv region, Ukraine. --Rbrechko 01:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bgag 04:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose(implied oppose vote) That has CA on the left side (the window frames appear green and pink instead of white), also it's a bit noisy and blurry and underexposed. Would need better raw conversion at least. --Plozessor 04:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sending this to CR assuming an implicit opposing vote by Plozessor --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 12:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Agen_-_Cathédrale_Saint-Caprais_-_Intérieur_-_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Agen (Lot-et-Garonne, France) - St. Caprasius cathedral - The crossing and the choir --Benjism89 06:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • A bit noisy. Fixable? --Ermell 22:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I have no access to the computer where I edit pictures until Monday, I'll try to fix it then. --Benjism89 07:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  • New version with more noise reduction, especially in the shades --Benjism89 21:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Thanks for your efford but the photo is not sharp enough unfortunately --Ermell 23:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I think it's sharp enough for QI, moving this to CR. --Benjism89 07:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell, sorry but it lacks sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 11:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Borderline but IMO sharp enough. --Plozessor 05:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 05:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Paccar_engine,_Busworld_Europe_2023,_Brussels_(P1140270).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Paccar engine at Busworld Europe 2023 --MB-one 08:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The engine is difficult to see because of the distracting background. The blue lighting is also unsuitable. In my opinion, the photo is not a quality image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 11:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Subject is poorly lit (not the photographer's fault, but relevant for QI). Agree that the background is a little distracting, a shallower DoF may have been useful here, but the main issue is the lighting. BigDom 07:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, busy compo, subject is too dark. --Sebring12Hrs 12:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 07:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Ochotona_alpina,_взрослая_особь.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Alpina pica at Ivanovsky mountain range, East Kazakhstan Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Avustfel --Екатерина Борисова 00:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose imo it's noisy and the whole image is of a low quality, likely a result of a tight crop, but nothing is sharp if you zoom in --Горбунова М.С. 08:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks detail throughout. BigDom 07:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough for an A4 size print. We have lots of wildlife images with far less resolution and more noise considered QI. --Smial 10:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much NR artifact and too little detail. --Plozessor 11:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice image, good composition with good lighting, sharp enough -- Spurzem 15:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO too noisy, visible on the fur even at low resolution. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low quality, not sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 12:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Etang_Majeur_de_Bassies_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Étang Majeur de Bassies in PNR Pyrénées ariégeoises, Ariege, France. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 09:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Nikride 11:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose White CA's between the mountains and the sky, and blurred tree.--Reda Kerbouche 15:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Quality is fine for me, tree is a little unsharp (due to lens correction?) but it's not a central part of the composition. The mountains themselves look very good; I agree there is a little bit of haloing (not CA) above some of the mountains, which usually occurs because of masking, but not enough to make me oppose. There is, though, a rather noticeable spot (dust/insect?) in the sky towards the left side, roughly above the right-hand end of the dam. Would support once that was removed. BigDom (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Dust spot has been removed. BigDom 14:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spot in the sky above the dam, otherwise ok. --Plozessor 11:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. --Tournasol7 13:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support now! --Plozessor 16:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Lotus_Eletre_DSC_7019.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lotus Eletre prototype in Böblingen --Alexander-93 19:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 19:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit too bright and poor description -- Spurzem 12:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Exposure is fine - it's a white subject and no detail seems to be lost. Composition and quality good. BigDom 07:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Ferrari_SF90_Spider_DSC_6993.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ferrari SF90 Spider in Böblingen --Alexander-93 19:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 19:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Roof and Ferrari Logo are too bright, -- Spurzem 12:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Exposure seems good to me - the reflective surfaces are brighter but not clipped. Composition is acceptable for QI. BigDom 07:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Exterior_of_Casa_dels_Canonges.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Exterior of Casa dels Canonges, Barcelona. --Reda Kerbouche 10:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. Everything is white at full size; --Sebring12Hrs 20:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you for sharing your opinion. I’d just like to suggest that, before casting your vote, you consider requesting any necessary adjustments. Additionally, I’d like to gather feedback from others as well.--Reda Kerbouche 15:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hello, sorry but in this case I don't think any adjustment is possible. But you can send the discussion to CR. Regards. --Sebring12Hrs 16:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a smartphone picture with its typical issues but IMO is still over the bar. --Plozessor 11:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Although I do accept a moderate downscaling of photos, for example to achieve a harmonious impression of sharpness after a digital perspective correction, even with stitched panos or action photos under difficult lighting conditions, quartering the number of pixels did not really bring any advantages with this candidate: the outermost corners of the image are still blurred. And the impression that this phone uses noise reduction in combination with image sharpening (or something with 'KI'...) to generate strange structures, which I have often had with other images, seems to be confirmed once again by this image. --Smial 12:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's well over the bar of what's acceptable for the QI, the subject is clear and sharp even though as per Plozessor it could be better. --Горбунова М.С. 15:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes? Reda Kerbouche 15:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Церковь_Николая_Чудотворца_Ворзогоры_фото_10.jpg

[edit]

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 07:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Jayabheri_The_Peak,_Vertical_shot.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jayabheri The Peak, Vertical shot --I.Mahesh 16:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Ok, but I think it would be better with less sky at the top --Imehling 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Imehling: ✓ Done, please review again. ~~~~ --I.Mahesh 05:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks --Imehling 07:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image seems unterexposed. It would be interesting to know at what time it was taken. Please discuss. --Spurzem 11:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed, also too bad that there's no EXIF data. --Plozessor 12:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I have no problem with the exposure here. The facade is in shadow. Resolution and sharpness are above QI-average. PC is ok. QI for me. --Milseburg (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 01:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dull colours. --Smial 13:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC))

File:SAS_Crown,_perspective_view.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination SAS Crown, perspective view --I.Mahesh 16:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Imehling 07:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image seems to dark. I think it is underexposed. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 11:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. BigDom 08:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dark and looks distorted. -- Екатерина Борисова 06:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Imehling. No problem with exposure or pc. --Milseburg 20:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 01:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Smial 13:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 31 Jan → Sat 08 Feb
  • Sat 01 Feb → Sun 09 Feb
  • Sun 02 Feb → Mon 10 Feb
  • Mon 03 Feb → Tue 11 Feb
  • Tue 04 Feb → Wed 12 Feb
  • Wed 05 Feb → Thu 13 Feb
  • Thu 06 Feb → Fri 14 Feb
  • Fri 07 Feb → Sat 15 Feb
  • Sat 08 Feb → Sun 16 Feb