Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
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]

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 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 04 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]] 05:43, 4 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 4, 2024[edit]

January 3, 2024[edit]

January 2, 2024[edit]

January 1, 2024[edit]

December 31, 2023[edit]

December 30, 2023[edit]

December 29, 2023[edit]

December 28, 2023[edit]

December 27, 2023[edit]

December 26, 2023[edit]

December 25, 2023[edit]

December 24, 2023[edit]

December 22, 2023[edit]

December 21, 2023[edit]

December 20, 2023[edit]

December 19, 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:Fontano_de_la_frenezuloj,_Gubbio.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Fountain of fools, Gubbio, Italy --Super nabla 22:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment This is rotated, a bit noisy, and shadows are quite dark. --Plozessor 05:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I tried to fix the rotation and slightly brightened the shadows. Super nabla 10:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 Support Good quality. --Plozessor 14:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It needs perspective correction and the sharpness is borderline. --C messier 20:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done I tried to fix the perspective. Super nabla 11:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Pörtschach_Winklern_Hauptstraße_Edelweißbad_Badesteg_25122023_0347.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pier at the Edelweiß bath on Hauptstraße in Winklern, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Laitche 03:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

* Oppose I disagree. Clouds are looking overexposed to me. Fixable by reducing the higlights. --Milseburg 10:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done @Milseburg: Thanks for your review. I reduced the highlights of the clouds. —- Johann Jaritz 05:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Something off at the edge between the left mountain and the clouds (CA gone wrong?). Colors are looking unnatural (such as using too much saturation/dynamics or increasing blue saturation). Lacking general sharpness (over-denoised?). --Plozessor 06:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks okay form me now. Criticism on the colors should concerning the whole series, I guess. --Milseburg (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can live with the colors, but IMO the grey mountaintops, probably result of too aggressive CA removal, seem unacceptable. There is a ca. 5 to 8 pixels wide grey band on top of the left mountain. --Plozessor 19:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Luesia,_Zaragoza,_España,_2023-01-04,_DD_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Luesia, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 12:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 13:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too much sky. I don't think this composition is favorable here. --Milseburg 10:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support It wouldn't hurt to crop a part of the sky, but I don't see this as a big issue. --Plozessor 05:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The horizon is arranged according to the rule of thirds, what's wrong with that? --Smial 15:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Certainly, but the ratio between land and sky should be reversed. The image takes too much attention on the rather irrelevant and empty sky instead of the landscape. --Milseburg (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment You are applying an FPC criterion here. A photo that has little or no technical flaws should not be rejected on QIC purely because of a matter of taste (except for distracting clutter in the surroundings or background...). This sky gives this photo a certain impression of the vastness of the landscape. If you simply cut it off, you get a squeezed-together "Schlauchbild". However, if you change the camera orientation when you take the picture, you might end up with 50% completely uninteresting meadows in the foreground that dominate the picture and would rightly be criticised. Sky as a background does not dominate a landscape photo, it's background. --Smial 20:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
      •  Comment The composition is criterion for a quality image. A landscape shot that consists of 2/3 of insignificant sky does not fulfill this. We don't know why the camera wasn't held a little further down. Therefore, only a cut can improve the image effect. I don't see any disadvatages in aspect ratios of long images. And yes, I find the sky too dominating. --Milseburg 23:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

File:White-breasted_Woodswallow_(Artamus_leucorynchus)_at_Gili_Trawangan,_NTB.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination White-breasted Woodswallow (Artamus leucorynchus) at Gili Trawangan, NTB --Eka343 16:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Damayantidwi 07:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I know that this is a difficult shot, but the birds are very blurry even though they are only a very small part of the photograph. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing except the right bird's beak is in focus. --Plozessor 05:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 11:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Ermita_de_la_Virgen_de_Puyal,_Luesia,_Zaragoza,_España,_2023-01-04,_DD_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hermitage of Our Lady of Puyal, Luesia, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 12:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 14:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please don't take it against me: In my opinion, a photo with such a distorted church tower and a squashed bell cannot be a quality image. -- Spurzem 14:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fully agree with Spurzem, the distortion is weird, and like this the picture is anything but QI. Could be possible to fix it though. --Plozessor 07:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version Poco a poco 09:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support New version is definitely better. Still looking a bit weird but way better than before and IMO acceptable. --Plozessor 11:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment. At least now it's better than before. I cannot judge whether the bend in the cornice at the top of the tower and whether the slope of the steps correspond to reality. Also, the image below is cropped too tightly. It's still not a quality picture for me. -- Spurzem 12:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Anyone who has ever tried to correct wide-angle distortion knows about the problems. Sometimes it just doesn't get any better. Here, however, the solution is quite acceptable.--Ermell 15:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hallo Ermell, verstehe ich Dich richtig: Wenn ein gutes Bild nicht oder nur schwer machbar ist, muss ein misslungenes zwangsläufig als Qualitätsbild bewertet werden? Da denke ich wieder einmal an meine schwarze Katze im dunklen Keller ohne Licht. Viele Grüße und alles Gute für 2024 -- Spurzem 16:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Ich habe mal probiert: Ein kleines bisschen besser scheint es zu gehen. Optimal ist meine Bearbeitung allerdings auch nicht. -- Spurzem 17:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Ich meinte das es of keinen besseren Standpunkt für ein optimalen Bild gibt zumal in diesem Fall das alte Gemäuer ziemlich schief ist. Deine Bearbeitung in allen Ehren aber die Fertigstellung des Werkes dürfte schwierig werden. Bei Pocos Version stört die Wölbung in Dach und Decke des Turmes. Das kann er ja vielleicht noch nachbessern. Dir auch ein gutes neues Jahr.--Ermell 14:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good job to everyone. --Sebring12Hrs 18:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The first version shows the typical problem when architectural shots are taken with an extreme wide-angle lens and these are also digitally verticalised. Even if everything has been done geometrically correctly, absurd perspectives are still created. The second version is crooked. --Smial 15:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment And we have lots of these here. Personally I'd prefer a more natural view, like it looked from the photographer's perspective. But I've learned quickly that QI promotion chances for anything not 100 % vertical are near zero. --Plozessor 19:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Perspective corrections, whether made digitally or optically with a shift lens, are important and often necessary technical means, primarily to compensate for minor imperfections. Unfortunately, however, they are often misused here to compulsively verticalise every, but really every image in order to avoid failing the assessment. Without regard for realistic representation of the conditions on site or photographic design aspects. Images have even been forced into a perfect rectangle, both vertically and horizontally, without thinking about how silly it looks when areas are covered that should actually be visible when looking at a window exactly vertically, for example. Optionally, buildings have no roofs, even though the architect has drawn and planned some. Which in turn makes the frequently used argument that you have to photograph buildings with exact verticals because the architect drew them that way seem absurd. Why doesn't this apply to roofs? Architects draw vertical walls so that the workers can build them vertically. --Smial 21:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
👍👍👍 --Plozessor 05:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Sirikanya_Tansakun-2023-12-10.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sirikanya Tansakun attends constitution day event --KrebsLovesFiesh 19:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion Photographed with too short focal length from too close distance, not a favorable image of the nice young woman and, in my opinion, not a quality image -- Spurzem 15:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
     Support Not perfect but good enough --MB-one 13:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. As I said above: No QI for me -- Spurzem 14:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO good enough. This is an extracted image. So the distance might have been different from what might be thought from this image. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
     Comment If the squint is the issue, then please check other images of the same person. May be she just has a squint. This may look better from an angle rather than from the front or be less obvious if the photo is taken from a larger distance. Or not. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Open_Wing_Basking_of_Symphaedra_nais_(Forster,_1771)_-_Baronet_WLB_DSC_2785.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Open Wing Basking of Symphaedra nais (Forster, 1771) - Baronet .No subspecies are listed under this species in India.This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Butterfly. --TAPAN1412 15:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 12:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient detail IMO, rather heavy noise because of very high ISO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If we apply the same standards as we do to other nominations then this is clearly below the bar. --Plozessor 07:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

File:BMW_i5_M60_1X7A1643.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination BMW i5 M60 in Böblingen --Alexander-93 10:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 11:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. With all our understanding of kindness, we should not be too generous. The hood and windshield of the car are too bright, the reflection of the street lamp in the front window and the blue information sheet in the side window are very annoying and we don't even want to talk about the background. Please discuss whether the photo is really a quality image. -- Spurzem 14:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Spurzem. Use of a polarizer should take out most of the extra reflections. --GRDN711 02:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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)
  •  Oppose. I wouldn't try to take a quality image of a building under these weather conditions and at this time in January. Or should something special be represented? Furthermore, the perspective is not convincingly corrected; it seems unnatural. -- Spurzem 15:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good attempt but agree with comments on being a little under-exposed and dull. A better day would make the difference. --GRDN711 02:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Wed 27 Dec → Thu 04 Jan
  • Thu 28 Dec → Fri 05 Jan
  • Fri 29 Dec → Sat 06 Jan
  • Sat 30 Dec → Sun 07 Jan
  • Sun 31 Dec → Mon 08 Jan
  • Mon 01 Jan → Tue 09 Jan
  • Tue 02 Jan → Wed 10 Jan
  • Wed 03 Jan → Thu 11 Jan
  • Thu 04 Jan → Fri 12 Jan