Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.


Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.


Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 2025.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 2025.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 22 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]] 08:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


February 22, 2025

[edit]

February 21, 2025

[edit]

February 20, 2025

[edit]

February 19, 2025

[edit]

February 18, 2025

[edit]

February 17, 2025

[edit]

February 16, 2025

[edit]

February 15, 2025

[edit]

February 14, 2025

[edit]

February 13, 2025

[edit]

February 12, 2025

[edit]

February 11, 2025

[edit]

February 10, 2025

[edit]

February 9, 2025

[edit]

February 7, 2025

[edit]

February 5, 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:Honey_in_Rodao_Flea_market,_Sao_Paulo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Honey in Rodao Flea market, Sao Paulo --Wilfredor 20:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not so sharp and rather noisy. Sorry. --Imehling 20:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
    Remember that its a old image --Wilfredor 23:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment What difference does that make? --Kallerna 06:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Stuben_Arlbergpass,_Böhringer_2019.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Settlement "Stuben" at blue hour, seen from Arlbergstraße. By User:Böhringer --Hangman'sDeath 08:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. The lighttrails have no stopping pattern, the detail level is good, and no quality decreasing disturbing elements --PantheraLeo1359531 09:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree per the problems mentioned on FPC not fixed in 6 years. --Milseburg 11:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg, really a great shot, but with these problems in order of importance: 1) significant CA at the mountains on the left side, 2) dust spots in the sky, 3) perspective. --Plozessor 06:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Cadillac_Lyriq_Auto_Zuerich_2024_DSC_6095.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cadillac Lyriq at Auto Zuerich 2024 --Alexander-93 17:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 21:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The reflection in the windshield really bothers me. The front of the car is also too dark. The picture isn't bad, but I wouldn't rate it as a quality picture. -- Spurzem 16:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think that's a problem for an outdoor photo; it's well shot.--Peulle 07:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose reflection, background. --Kallerna 06:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Audi_S6_Avant_e-tron_Auto_Zuerich_2024_DSC_6310.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Audi S6 Avant e-tron at Auto Zuerich 2024 --Alexander-93 16:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Горбунова М.С. 23:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing reflections, too dark at the left. No QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Kallerna 06:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Altstadt,_Altdorf_bei_Nuernberg_(P1180267).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Half-timbered house at Denkmalensemble Altstadt (Altdorf bei Nürnberg) --MB-one 09:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful half-timbered house. However, the photo appears underexposed and is therefore not very appealing. -- Spurzem 09:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Bad weather, but well exposed. --Sebring12Hrs 11:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad weather or not, the subject is too dark for my taste. Can be fixed of course - I'd alter the graduation curve so that the shadows and midtones would become brighter, than increase shadows and reduce highlights, like here. --Plozessor 11:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem. --Kallerna 06:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 11:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Norra_Esplanaden_February_2025_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Buildings on the street Norra Esplanaden in Sala, Sweden. --ArildV 08:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --দিব্য দত্ত 10:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The corner tower is much too bright. Look especially at the window frames. For me, the photo would not be a QI. Please take no offense. -- Spurzem 16:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 11:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
     Comment PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 12:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
     Support I think it is good now. --Sebring12Hrs 13:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I could ignore the overexposed corner tower, but the picture is also tilted (right side is leaning inward). --Plozessor 11:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Yes a bit. Indeed. --Sebring12Hrs 12:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info New version uploaded (perspective, exposure and highlights). @Sebring12Hrs, Plozessor, and Spurzem: --ArildV 12:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support New version is OK. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It's still slightly leaning, but exposure is fine and IMO it's over the bar now. --Plozessor 06:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 06:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

File:C2023_A3_Tsuchinshan-ATLAS_over_the_Grand_Canyon,_Oct_14.jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment It is a 16MB crepuscular picture of a very faint object. Both the nucleus and the tail of the the comet are well reproduced. A long exposure was required, and only the bush and the grass in the left-hand corner are out of focus. Grand Canyon strata are distinguishable, even though they are against the source of light. --Harlock81 07:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info Moving this to CR assuming that the nominator wishes to challenge the opposing vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, too unsharp and noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 11:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's a great shot, no issues with sharpness, but the noise bugs me. After all, it was taken with a 4000 € full-frame camera at ISO 500. It should be possible to reduce the noise without losing too much detail of the comet. --Plozessor 11:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
    • I want explicitly thanks all the reviewers for their participation, and suggestions. --Harlock81 14:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 11:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Пещера_горы_Богдо_с_видом_на_озеро_Баскунчак.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mount Bolshoye Bogdo (by Попрошаев Сергей) --FBilula 11:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Olivier LPB 11:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful view, but the foreground, which takes up half of the picture, is totally unsharp --Екатерина Борисова 00:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, not sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 13:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I believe that the use of the limited depth of field is intentional and, in this case, actually benefits the composition of the image. --Smial 14:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial, great picture IMO. --Plozessor 18:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The limited depth of field is an acceptable artistic choice IMO. But there are two issues that should be fixed : tilt (the horizon is not horizontal) and artefacts around most of the top rocks and part of the bottom ones (probably due to CA removal). --Benji 18:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good! Юрий Д.К. 18:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 18:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Sverdlov_Street,_Efremov,_Russia,_2024-9_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sverdlov Street, Efremov, Russia --Юрий Д.К. 11:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Slightly leaning out on the left side --Plozessor 05:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done --Plozessor 04:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Better but still slightly leaning to the left. --Plozessor 17:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Hi, I've made another attempt. Please note that it is a Khrushchevka, low-cost old Soviet house. I doubt whether it is completely straight. Юрий Д.К. 13:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me now. --Plozessor 18:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Do these buildings have such piercing colors in real life? -- Екатерина Борисова 00:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Hi, Екатерина. Colors appear real for my vision. Very beautiful and soft colors for me. Юрий Д.К. 13:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 18:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Painted_house_-_Sverdlov_Street,_Efremov,_Russia,_2024-9_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Painted house - Sverdlov Street, Efremov --Юрий Д.К. 11:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Leaning out (and unsharp) on the left side --Plozessor 05:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done --Plozessor 04:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Better but still slightly leaning to the left. --Plozessor 17:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Hi, I've made another attempt. Please note that it is a Khrushchevka, low-cost old Soviet house. I doubt whether it is completely straight. Юрий Д.К. 13:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me now. --Plozessor 18:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 18:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Morro_Jable_(Fuerteventura,_Spain),_Strand_--_2025_--_2487_(bw).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Structures with different colored sand on the beach of Morro Jable, Fuerteventura, Spain --XRay 07:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The original version is already QI (and FP) --Poco a poco 08:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The recurring discussion. In my opinion, the color and black and white development of an image are independent of each other and also clearly different. There is always the question of which differences make a nomination possible, but I think it is permissible in both cases. --XRay 09:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per my understanding, it has been common practice not to promote works derived from other QI, or multiple versions of the same raw image. About black and white as such, I think there are scenes where it makes sense and contributes to the atmosphere of a picture (like a night scene from a dark street), but this is not one of it. --Plozessor 05:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a poco. --Kallerna 16:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Cosmos_caudatus_(80248).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cosmos caudatus in Cape May, NJ, with a sweat bee --Rhododendrites 15:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose for now because of misidentification. Cosmos caudatus is supposed to look quite different, e.g. with linear-subulate involucral bracts, whereas yours look almost ovate, and probably also with wider leaf lobes. I suggest that this might be Cosmos bipinnatus --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
@Robert Flogaus-Faust: Thanks for the tip. The caudatus determination came from someone who was leading a birding walk in this spot, and not a botanist or horticulturalist, so I'm content to defer to your expertise. I've updated the category/description and will move the file once this nomination ends. Rhododendrites 17:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Jeep_(Colmar)_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jeep at the exhibition marking the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 10:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 10:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Jeep and background are too distorted. Please discuss because of QI. -- Spurzem 12:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because it needs perspective correction, otherwise it's very good. --Plozessor 05:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Perspective correction. Gzen92 21:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good! --Plozessor 04:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's much better now, but the proportions of the car still look unnatural. Compare the front and rear wheels and see the line of the windshield sloping to the left. Apparently the photo was taken from a too close distance. -- Spurzem 15:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Vehicle category missing.--Peulle 22:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 14 Feb → Sat 22 Feb
  • Sat 15 Feb → Sun 23 Feb
  • Sun 16 Feb → Mon 24 Feb
  • Mon 17 Feb → Tue 25 Feb
  • Tue 18 Feb → Wed 26 Feb
  • Wed 19 Feb → Thu 27 Feb
  • Thu 20 Feb → Fri 28 Feb
  • Fri 21 Feb → Sat 01 Mar
  • Sat 22 Feb → Sun 02 Mar