Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
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 April 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 April 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 April 25 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]] 06:14, 25 April 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).


April 25, 2025

[edit]

April 24, 2025

[edit]

April 23, 2025

[edit]

April 22, 2025

[edit]

April 21, 2025

[edit]

April 20, 2025

[edit]

April 19, 2025

[edit]

April 18, 2025

[edit]

April 17, 2025

[edit]

April 16, 2025

[edit]

April 15, 2025

[edit]

April 14, 2025

[edit]

April 12, 2025

[edit]

April 11, 2025

[edit]

April 10, 2025

[edit]

April 09, 2025

[edit]

April 06, 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:Flora_in_Lotte_Hotel_in_Tashkent_29.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Echeveria 'Perle von Nurnberg' --Lvova 07:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Center is out of focus. Sorry. --Ermell 18:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    Why should it be center for a plant? --Lvova 20:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Abt_XGT_DSC_8292.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Abt XGT at Motorworld Region Stuttgart --Alexander-93 13:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Grunpfnul 19:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
    IMO too busy background with the cut heads. --Kallerna 12:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:20250412_Berufliche_Schulen_Bergsonstraße_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spiral stairs at the cafe of the Vocational schools on Bergsonstraße --FlocciNivis 09:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 05:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
    Very random composition. --Kallerna 11:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Rallye_Monte-Carlo_Historique_2025,_Bad_Homburg_(P1032963).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination TV reporter at the departure of the Rallye Monte-Carlo Historique 2025 in Bad Homburg --MB-one 21:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Can you fix the perspective (particularly the background buildings)? --Mike Peel 16:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 21:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 07:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
    Random composition. --Kallerna 11:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:20210703_Epona_relief_Vicus_Schwarzenacker.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Copy of the upper third of the Epona relief found at the Vicus Schwarzenacker --FlocciNivis 13:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Is the left wall really leaning like that ? --Sebring12Hrs 22:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Bad crop. --Kallerna 11:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    I tried to improve on the crop and some other things on this image. Can I get a new evaluation? --FlocciNivis 19:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Statue_of_Marcus_Nonius_Balbus_(Herculanum)_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of Marcus Nonius Balbus, Herculanum, Italy --Bgag 03:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 04:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Statue to the right is blurry. --Tagooty 04:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The main subject is the statue at the center of the picture. --Bgag 13:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject is sharp. The composition with the crop and the left statue covering part of the subject is a bit unusual, but concluding from other pictures, it seems that there are not many other options. --Plozessor 04:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? �� --Plozessor 04:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Moskvitch_407_in_Small_Ring_Road,_Tashkent_2023_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An old soviet car, Moskvitch 407 in Guzar Mahallah, Chilanzar disctrict of Tashkent.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Ayqironlik 10:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Nice, but dark. Can you brighten it? --Jakubhal 13:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --A S M Jobaer 14:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No, not yet. @A S M Jobaer: if you disagree with a previous reviewer's comment, then changle template to a discussion. Don't promote photos with unresolved discussions! --Jakubhal 15:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed, blurry, chroma noise. Probably all fixaxble, but currently no QI. --Plozessor 04:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Wings_of_Freedom_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wings of FreedomI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --A S M Jobaer 18:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ayqironlik 19:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred, no useful description, bad framing (part of the leg cut off) --Jakubhal 19:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. --Plozessor 06:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. Too low DOF. --Smial 11:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Leuven_-_Oude_Markt_-_De_Weerelt_building_-_Atlas_carrying_a_globe.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Atlas carrying a globe on top of a building --Romainbehar 05:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The left part of the window is out of focus. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 08:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't see any big problems. Lvova 07:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition (with the sharp angle and the crop) is a bit questionable, but the technical quality is absolutely acceptable. Overall over the bar for me. --Plozessor 03:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)~
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Blue_and_white_tabby_cat–IMG_6442_09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blue tabby cats with green eyes, Turkey. Kızıl 17:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 07:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Cluttered background. --Smial 12:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Smial --Jakubhal 04:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment You should crop the upper part with the blue object in the background away. And you need to fix categorization and make up your mind whether it's a "blue", a "blue silver", a "blue mackerel" or a "blue and white" cat. --Plozessor 03:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Düsseldorf,_Statue_"Pallas_Athene"_--_2025_--_2584.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue “Pallas Athene” (Johannes Knubel, 1926) at the Tonhalle, Düsseldorf, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 10:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • I know that golden statues are always shine brightly in the sun, but here parts of the statue are blown out too much to ignore it. --Екатерина Борисова 02:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    • I improved the lights. You're right, golden statues are difficult, but the parts are very, very bright in real too. --XRay 06:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Perhaps the solution сould be to photograph them in cloudy weather? :) Thanks for the improvement, but I think that the highlights are still too bright. Feel free to move this image to CR, if you disagree. --Екатерина Борисова 01:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
        • The highlights on shiny metallic surfaces cannot be avoided and are not disturbing. --XRay 04:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина. The extremely high contrast could be reduced by soft lighting. This would be a common technique in the studio, but of course it can be very time- and labour-intensive outdoors. --Smial 09:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose One flaw has already been mentioned. I'm also bothered by the shadow (?) on the right and the bicycle. Further I would have tried to photograph the statue from a semi-frontal angle, but that's a matter of taste. -- Spurzem 11:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Nuja, als Übersichtsfoto würde ich das noch als nützlich gelten lassen. Es wird sicher noch einen Schwung weiterer Aufnahmen davon geben mit besserer Gestaltung. Aber es muss ja auch nicht jedes Bild ein Bapperl haben. --Smial 14:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Ich formulieren es mal auf Deutsch: Natürlich hast recht, dass nicht jedes Foto das „Bapperl“ benötigt. Mir persönlich ist es mittlerweile wichtig, dass meine Fotos ein gewisses Niveau erreichen. Gut, persönlicher Ehrgeiz. Aber noch wichtiger ist mir die Erwähnung der QI-Fotos in COM:OVERWRITE. Es steht im Widerspruch zu den Lizenzbedingungen, dass Dritte Bilder bearbeiten (vermeintlich verbessern) und dann das Originalbild überschreiben und das dann auch noch unter dem Namen des ursprünglichen Fotografen hier anbieten - statt es als neues Bild hochzuladen und sich dann als Bearbeiter zu nennen. (Das kann im ärgsten Fall sogar zu Problemen mit Rechten Dritter führen. Siehe z. B. Fotos von der Glaspyramide am Louvre, die nicht zentrales Motiv sein darf.) Das Bapperl ist ein sehr geringer Schutz, aber immerhin. Lieber wäre mir eine sichere Lösung, aber die sieht die Mediawiki-Software nicht vor. --XRay 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The picture has some (hard to avoid) issues, but in total it's over the bar for me. --Plozessor 10:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 15:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support ok to me.--Ermell 21:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 21:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 17 Apr → Fri 25 Apr
  • Fri 18 Apr → Sat 26 Apr
  • Sat 19 Apr → Sun 27 Apr
  • Sun 20 Apr → Mon 28 Apr
  • Mon 21 Apr → Tue 29 Apr
  • Tue 22 Apr → Wed 30 Apr
  • Wed 23 Apr → Thu 01 May
  • Thu 24 Apr → Fri 02 May
  • Fri 25 Apr → Sat 03 May