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 10 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]] 11:05, 10 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 10, 2025

[edit]

April 09, 2025

[edit]

April 08, 2025

[edit]

April 07, 2025

[edit]

April 06, 2025

[edit]

April 05, 2025

[edit]

April 04, 2025

[edit]

April 03, 2025

[edit]

April 02, 2025

[edit]

April 01, 2025

[edit]

March 31, 2025

[edit]

March 30, 2025

[edit]

March 29, 2025

[edit]

March 28, 2025

[edit]

March 27, 2025

[edit]

March 22, 2025

[edit]

March 20, 2025

[edit]

March 17, 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:Hashima,_Nagasaki,_Japan,_20240814_1427_3423.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Abandoned island of Hashima near Nagasaki --Jakubhal 03:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 03:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Not an expert but this image looks out focus, left and right side. --Sabalo22 02:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Souvenir_Water_Bottle_from_Bangla_WikiConference_2024.png

[edit]

  • Nomination Souvenir Water Bottle from Bangla WikiConference 2024, photo was taken in a canteen. MdsShakil 08:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Size < 2 MP minimum --Tagooty 09:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    @Tagooty: Uploaded a 2,048×3,072 resolution version. MdsShakil 10:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    Size is ok now. I retain my oppose until the artifacts along the edge of the upper half of the bottle are fixed. --Tagooty 10:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now IMO --MB-one 17:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question I see some compression artefacts around the top, e.g. on the carabiner hook. The image hasn't been upscaled, has it? Without metadata it's hard to know what's going on.--Peulle 08:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Perhaps the contrast between the white bottle and the light background it stands on could be better. But otherwise, I have nothing to complain about. -- Spurzem 11:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI agree with Peulle. This is such a simple motif where a better result should be possible. --St. Krug 15:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  OpposePer St. Krug - Quality acceptable for a difficult situation, but not here. --Plozessor 03:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Tagooty 10:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Типовой_кинотеатр_Максим_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A typical Soviet cinema, modern times --Lvova 09:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Should be sufficiently categorized --A.Savin 12:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
    Added the 2nd category, if you wish. --Lvova 15:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 08:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    God bless ChatGPT who can help to understand. Ok, the new version is uploaded. --Lvova 22:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  • {{s}} good now. --Harlock81 07:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    The tilt is still visible even at normal size. --Sebring12Hrs 07:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    You are right. This morning I compared the two pictures, but I paid attention mostly to the right-hand side. The left corner of the building is still tilted, even though less than before. --Harlock81 09:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 07:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Medina_entrance_at_Bab_Agnaou_Gate,_Marrakesh,_Morocco,_20250125_1254_7239.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Medina entrance at Bab Agnaou Gate, Marrakesh, Morocco --Jakubhal 04:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the top part of arch is not sharp enough . In addition, the picture looks very strange when the verticals are completely straight, but the upper part of the arch is tilted to the right. --Екатерина Борисова 02:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Of course, this photo can be criticized, too. But I think it's sharp enough. You can even see the cat's whiskers. Apart from that, I wouldn't try to change the perspective, which is from left to right. -- Spurzem 09:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture. Perspective is ok as it is. The upper part of the arch is out of focus, but it's hard to have that sharp from a short distance, but the short distance was necessary for the composition. --Plozessor 03:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Dirk_Zedler,_Cycling_World_Europe_2025,_Meerbusch_(File1028-2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dirk Zedler at Cycling World Europe 2025 --MB-one 08:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The post sharpening of the eyes did not work very well.Sorry. --Ermell 19:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done uploaded a new version with better denoising. Thanks for the review --MB-one 20:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Too blurry now. Sorry. --Ermell 20:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Plozessor 05:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 08:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus not on the face, destructive noise reduction. --Smial 12:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Church_of_Our_Lady_of_the_Assumption_in_Caussade_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stained-glass window of the church of Our Lady of the Assumption in Caussade, Tarn-et-Garonne, France. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 05:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 07:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not enough detail IMO --MB-one 07:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I miss no detail. -- Spurzem 10:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per MB-one --GoldenArtists 07:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --GoldenArtists 07:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Male_blackbird_(Turdus_merula),_Calouste_Gulbenkian_Garden,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Male blackbird (Turdus merula), Calouste Gulbenkian Garden, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 19:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Generally good. But I would suggest a tighter crop. --MB-one 10:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Thank you for the feedback. I understand that many prefer tighter crops. I personally prefer to include more leading space in the direction the subject is facing. -- Julesvernex2 14:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I understand your intentions. For me that's a dealbreaker regarding QI. However, you can ask for CR, if you want. --MB-one 07:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @MB-one: can you point me to the QI guidelines that disavow the current crop? Here, under the 'Composition' section, the Rule of Thirds (which was used for this image) is actually suggested and tight crops are discouraged. I suggest you base your review on the current QI rules, rather than on what you personally consider to be dealbreakers. -- Julesvernex2 09:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment QI guidelines require a "balanced" composition. The ratio of subject against fore- and background area seems unbalanced to me. It's not an objective criterion, so the reviewer's discretion is advised here. However, if you prefer me to abstain from reviewing your nominations in the future, that's ok. Just let me know. --MB-one 19:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don’t think you should refrain from reviewing images, mine or anyone else’s, because that’s how we all learn. I do think however that you should keep an open mind for photos that don’t fit your personal aesthetics but nevertheless meet the QI guidelines. Take composition guidelines, for instance: these are not broad because we expect reviewers to apply their own subjective discretion on top, but because there are many valid approaches to composition. — Julesvernex2 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
 Support The crop is fine in my opinion. It is good if there is still some space in the line of vision. The cropping, which is too tight, reminds me more of a Wikipedia style, but not of a good composition. --XRay 11:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
 Support I agree with XRAY and Julesvernex2. Apart from that, a beautiful picture that should receive its QI award.--St. Krug 22:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
 Support The quality of the image is sufficient also according to me. --Harlock81 07:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Persian_art,_Hermitage_Hall_392,_by_Lvova_48.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A persian base of a Candlestick --Lvova 07:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sharpness is borederline, reflection is cropped. Perspective is ukward. --Sebring12Hrs 19:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Reflection of the object is not cropped, but other's - yes. So ok, be oppose, but not so ukward. --Lvova 19:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with the borderline sharpness, but the crop makes sense for me because we have the complete reflection of the subject. Over the bar for me. --Plozessor 03:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor. --Harlock81 (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 02 Apr → Thu 10 Apr
  • Thu 03 Apr → Fri 11 Apr
  • Fri 04 Apr → Sat 12 Apr
  • Sat 05 Apr → Sun 13 Apr
  • Sun 06 Apr → Mon 14 Apr
  • Mon 07 Apr → Tue 15 Apr
  • Tue 08 Apr → Wed 16 Apr
  • Wed 09 Apr → Thu 17 Apr
  • Thu 10 Apr → Fri 18 Apr