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]
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 January 2024.
  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 2024.
  • 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 30 2024 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]] 10:36, 30 January 2024 (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 30, 2024[edit]

January 29, 2024[edit]

January 28, 2024[edit]

January 27, 2024[edit]

January 26, 2024[edit]

January 25, 2024[edit]

January 24, 2024[edit]

January 23, 2024[edit]

January 22, 2024[edit]

January 21, 2024[edit]

January 20, 2024[edit]

January 19, 2024[edit]

January 18, 2024[edit]

January 17, 2024[edit]

January 16, 2024[edit]

January 15, 2024[edit]

January 12, 2024[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:Fischteich_im_Wildpark_Schloss_Tambach.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fish pond in Tambach deer park (Panorama) --Plozessor 05:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Tagooty 06:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree. Alignment: Looks slightly curved upwards to me. --Milseburg 14:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Milseburg: You're right, there was some distortion in the panorama. Uploaded a new version, please check. --Plozessor 19:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

File:20240122_blue_jay_casa_PD200729.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Blue Jay, Close Up, Glastonbury CT USA --Pdanese 01:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bgag 04:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree Basically a very nice shot. But I think the photo is overprocessed, in particular there are heavily oversharpened areas right next to parts of the image that have been blurred by denoising. Less would be more. --Smial 12:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

File:20240125_northern_cardinal_casa_PD201493.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Northern Cardinal, Close Up, Glastonbury CT USA --Pdanese 01:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree Basically a very nice shot. But I think the photo is overprocessed, in particular there are heavily oversharpened areas right next to parts of the image that have been blurred by denoising. Less would be more. --Smial 12:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not an expert, but all I did was run this through DxO PureRaw at its lowest setting. So, there was no _intentional_ sharpening on either image. Not sure if the denoise algorithm does some type of sharpening as well. Nevertheless, I nominated it, so I disagree on the pics being overprocessed (esp. the cardinal). The blue jay image has an unfortunately harsh pine tree in the background. --Pdanese 18:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    *  Comment Unfortunately, I have no idea whether DXO has fine-tuning settings and if so, which ones. I would wait for the discussion, it may well be that my "contra" is outvoted, the images are both otherwise excellently exposed and composed. Only the impression of sharpness seems artificial to me. --Smial 19:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree, quite a lot of sharpening/denoising artefacts. For A7RV images, I often turn off DXO PureRaw's sharpening (called "lens sharpening", if memory serves me well) and apply sharpening elsewhere (happy to discuss this further, if helpful). Has this been processed only with PureRaw, though? The EXIF metadata mentions Topaz Photo AI --Julesvernex2 10:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

File:PlayaLaPerlaMDP-ene2024-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La Perla beach at January 2024 in Mar del Plata, Argentina --Ezarate 21:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Purple CAs everywher. --Sebring12Hrs 13:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

File:PlayaLaPerlaMDP-ene2024.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La Perla beach in Mar del Plata, Argentina in January 2024 --Ezarate 21:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 06:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Purple CAs everywher. --Sebring12Hrs 13:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry, you're right. --XRay 13:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Simboloateo_concirculo.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Symbol of atheism (by Stannered). --Thi 14:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unnecessarily bloated code for such a simple drawing. Please optimize. --Iketsi 21:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Now qualifies as a quality image. --Iketsi 06:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO too simple to qualify as a quality image. @User:Iketsi: Can you please decide whether you wish to support or oppose this image? Please strike one of your two votes. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    •  Question Neither agreeing nor disagreeing; should File:AtheismLogo.svg get demoted? It is featured prominently on Commons:Quality_images, yet comparable in complexity. --Iketsi (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
       Comment There is no procedure for demotion. This image was rightfully promoted IMO because it got a supporting vote and no other votes. That's it, even if someone disagrees now. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Robert. --Milseburg 14:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I miss an image. -- Spurzem 17:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I don't understand this. There is the SVG file of the logo. This is an image file, even though it is very simple and not a photo, of course. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Bukový_les.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Ore Mountains offer many interesting views, places and natural beauties. One of such places is the old advanced beech trees on the hill of Bouřňák at an altitude of 850 m. The vegetation here is an example of the effect of the weather on the trees, which here bend and twist into various interesting shapes. Every bit of our land has its own typical charm, such as this mysterious forest where the fog adds to the atmosphere in the photos. By User:JosefZvoník --MIGORMCZ 10:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 14:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Impressing scenery but the CA should be removed. --Ermell 23:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Schiff_der_Strompolizei_bei_der_Staustufe_Knetzgau.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination River police ship "Nassach" at Knetzgau river barrage --Plozessor 05:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. I'm sorry, if the sun itself is overexposed when it's pictured, that's unavoidable, but in this photo the clipping areas are just too large and too dominant. Also, the photo seems a little crooked to me. --Smial 09:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Smial: Fixed the tilt, thx for spotting. About the clipping, I think that the low sun creates the atmosphere of the picture, but I agree that the clipped area is quite big and I was unsure whether to nominate this. Let's see what others think. --Plozessor 14:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The picture has atmosphere but the blown area is too dominant. --Tagooty 13:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Milseburg 14:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 14:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Human.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Figures of a man and a woman from the Pioneer plaque (by Gmaxwell). --Thi 14:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not created by a Commons user per description. --Plozessor 05:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • That is probably wrong, but files with wrong description cannot be QI either. --Plozessor (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support No offence, but please let us discuss what exactly the rules say to this special case. This is a SVG representation of a well-known (some would say: iconic) drawing. Because the SVG is a reproduction, I would expect the QI process to judge not the drawing, but the quality of the SVG representation. AFAIK the SVG has been created by a Commons user. So shoudln’t we accept this file and judge it on the base of the SVG representation – namely, whether it represents the original drawing accuratel and is of good technical quality? I would say so … --Aristeas 19:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Then the description is wrong. No issues with SVG representations of NASA works, but the description uses the template PD-NASA and clearly says that "This file is in the public domain in the United States because it was solely created by NASA.". If that is wrong, fix the description and then I'd support it. --Plozessor (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good hint! Yes, then the template {{PD-NASA}} is somewhat misleading here. At least it should be amended by a hint stating that the vectorization was done by somebody else. --Aristeas 11:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

File:D-6-74-187-13_Marienstatue.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 1933 statue of Mary in Falsbrunn --Plozessor 05:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The clouds are overexposed, sorry. --Tournasol7 05:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd appreciate discussion about this 'overexposed clouds' issue. On a slightly cloudy day, you can't take a reasonable picture of an object in the shadow without parts of the brightest sunlit clouds overexposed. This could be worked around only with HDR, but I haven't read anywhere that HDR would be a prerequisite for QI. Personally, I would consider overexposed clouds a flaw in landscape photos, but not where the subject is a small object on the ground. --Plozessor 05:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No need for HDR here, this is simply overexposed. Not only the clouds, but also some parts of the object itself are clipping. With better exposure and some s-curving the contrast could have been handled. Note: Always select the lowest possible ISO setting that still allows a blur-free photo. All digital cameras then record the largest possible contrast range. With each whole step higher ISO setting, one f-stop of contrast range is automagically lost. And this is then missing when you fiddle around with a JPG from the raw image. (Subsequent S-curving of an already "developed" JPG is only useful to a very limited extent, as this can easily lead to banding or torn tonal value gradients). --Smial 08:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Smial: This was taken with the "lowest possible ISO setting" that my camera offers (ISO 100), and of course I applied all settings during RAW conversion, I did NOT "fiddle around with a JPG". Still, even the contrast range of an APS-C sensor at ISO 100 might not be enough to provide high detail for an object in the shadow AND for the bright sunlit parts of clouds. With higher exposure we lose detail in the clouds, with lower exposure we lose detail in the shadows. The subject of the image is the statue (not the landscape), and QI guidelines specifically say that an image must have enough details "in the shadows", so I wanted to get the best possible representation of the statue and did not care about the clouds. --Plozessor 09:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Smial, @Tournasol7, I've found that I made another shot with lower exposure. Replaced the image now, please evaluate the new one (make sure you don't view the old version from cache). This has now probably less detail for the statue, but the overall exposure is better. --Plozessor 10:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Which part of the Rules do you refer to? I found "Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element." And: " In correctly exposed images, details in a significant part of image are retained. " - well in a photo with sky and clouds in the composition, these are always significant.My comment about the ISO settings was not meant as a personal criticism, but as a general help with a practical example for anyone who is happy to receive tips. --Smial 11:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Smial: Yeah, interesting, the description says "lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic" while the left column of that same row ("Exposure") lists "lost details in shadow areas" as an issue. Anyway, what do you think about the new version? --Plozessor 12:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 09:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK in my eyes. --Ermell 19:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 13:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Mon 22 Jan → Tue 30 Jan
  • Tue 23 Jan → Wed 31 Jan
  • Wed 24 Jan → Thu 01 Feb
  • Thu 25 Jan → Fri 02 Feb
  • Fri 26 Jan → Sat 03 Feb
  • Sat 27 Jan → Sun 04 Feb
  • Sun 28 Jan → Mon 05 Feb
  • Mon 29 Jan → Tue 06 Feb
  • Tue 30 Jan → Wed 07 Feb