Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 March 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 March 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 March 03 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]] 13:50, 3 March 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).


March 3, 2025

[edit]

March 2, 2025

[edit]

March 1, 2025

[edit]

February 28, 2025

[edit]

February 27, 2025

[edit]

February 26, 2025

[edit]

February 25, 2025

[edit]

February 24, 2025

[edit]

February 23, 2025

[edit]

February 22, 2025

[edit]

February 21, 2025

[edit]

February 20, 2025

[edit]

February 19, 2025

[edit]

February 18, 2025

[edit]

February 15, 2025

[edit]

February 14, 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:Mother_and_son_from_Assam_wearing_bihu_dress.jpg

[edit]

File:1939_BMW_328_Retro_Classics_2025_DSC_7557.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 1939 BMW 328 at Retro Classics 2025 --Alexander-93 11:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very dark, the wheels barely stand out from the floor. I would brighten up the picture a bit overall, especially the lower area. -- Spurzem 12:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
    Black tires on a nearly black floor nomaly doesn't result in a very good contrast. Please discuss. --Alexander-93 18:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfortunate lighting, messy background. --Smial 11:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of exposure (the back wheel merges with the dark background). Would support the picture if this was fixed. --Plozessor 11:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

File:1973_Deserter_GT_Retro_Classics_2025_DSC_7566.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 1973 Deserter GT at Retro Classics 2025 --Alexander-93 11:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The picture looks pretty gloomy overall. But what bothers me most are the sheets with the information and addresses in the windshield. -- Spurzem 12:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Is it really too dark? Please discuss. Regarding the sheets: The car stood on a car show, where vintage cars are sold. This might be normal. --Alexander-93 18:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfortunate lighting. --Smial 11:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment It has only few pixels brighter than 64 %. Adjusting the graduation curve (to increase shadows and midtones) would improve it. --Plozessor 11:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Lord_Krishna_in_Manipuri_Ras_Lila_dance_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lord Krishna in Manipuri Ras Lila dance --Suyash.dwivedi 08:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 08:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hands and body are blurry, details of the costume are blown out --Екатерина Борисова 01:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина, too many blurry parts. --Plozessor 05:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, waist area is especially off --Горбунова М.С. 11:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Конюшня_усадьбы_Гостилицы.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ruined stables yard in former Gostilitsy palace park, Leningrad Oblast, Russia. By User:Brainmade --Екатерина Борисова 01:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, resolution is barely above the minimum with 2.6 MP, though it was taken with a 20MP camera. And despite the low resolution and though it was taken with ISO 100 in sunny weather, it's really grainy. --Plozessor 04:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't think that it's so much grainy. Please discuss this one too. --Екатерина Борисова 01:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Would be a great one with a bigger size, some noise, but definitely on the side that can be easily edited out. --Горбунова М.С. 11:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed, noisy, too low resolution for a landscape photo. Nice composition. --Smial 11:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Конюшня_усадьбы_Гостилицы_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ruined stables yard in former Gostilitsy palace park, Leningrad Oblast, Russia. By User:Brainmade --Екатерина Борисова 01:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Same as the previous picture - only 2.6 MP but grainy and overcontrasted despite taken with proper 20MP camera. --Plozessor 04:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't want to argue, but I think that in such cases it is worth making allowances for the fact that the photo was taken from a drone. --Екатерина Борисова 16:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sending this to CR because there is an opposing vote and the nominator changed back to "/Nomination". --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Helvella_crispa_342545829.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination White Saddle (Helvella crispa)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a Wikimedia Commons work. Sorry. Try VIC. --Sebring12Hrs 12:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, like Flickr is not WC, but the picture was uploaded to Commons by bot. And QIC rules say literally "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". This picture is placed in Commons and was taken by Wikimedian, so it's eligible. --Екатерина Борисова 02:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It is a bit unfortunate that Matej uploads his picture to iNaturalist and then lets iNaturalist bot upload them to Commons. But he is a Commons user and he also responds to questions on his user page in Commons, so IMO his images are eligible for QI. And this picture is good. --Plozessor 05:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ok I cancel my vote, I read your arg and I agree. Regards. --Sebring12Hrs 14:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Tiger_crane_fly_-_Nephrotoma_ferruginea.jpg_

[edit]

  • Nomination Tiger Cranefly -- Sabalo22 18:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Btspurplegalaxy 06:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad crop. Only few parts of the bodies are in focus, but not the eyes. Lost of details also when seen as thumbnail. --Harlock81 06:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop could be acceptable if the picture was sharp, but it isn't, DoF is way too low. --Plozessor 07:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad focus and crop. --Sebring12Hrs 17:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Block_building_(35366p).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Block building in Indianapolis --Rhododendrites 19:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Imehling 16:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion --A.Savin 13:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose That perspective could work if the picture would show the whole building, but not with that crop, for me at least. --Plozessor 07:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed from is view. --Sebring12Hrs 12:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of the distortion and the shadow no QI for me -- Spurzem 13:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Мыс_Тегетхофф_на_остров_Галля,_вид_с_береговой_линии.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hall Island, Franz Joseph Land (by Nixette) --FBilula 13:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Harlock81 15:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great scenery but very underexposed, almost no highlights or whites at all. --BigDom 18:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Great scenery. Exposure looks okay to me, and good quality overall. Coordinates should be added. --Milseburg 14:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Only few pixels are brighter than 80 %, IMO graduation curve should be adjusted. Otherwise it's very good. --Plozessor 15:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. Per others, very underexposed, probably fixable. --Benjism89 14:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 19:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 23 Feb → Mon 03 Mar
  • Mon 24 Feb → Tue 04 Mar
  • Tue 25 Feb → Wed 05 Mar
  • Wed 26 Feb → Thu 06 Mar
  • Thu 27 Feb → Fri 07 Mar
  • Fri 28 Feb → Sat 08 Mar
  • Sat 01 Mar → Sun 09 Mar
  • Sun 02 Mar → Mon 10 Mar
  • Mon 03 Mar → Tue 11 Mar