Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 14 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]] 03:24, 14 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 14, 2025

[edit]

April 13, 2025

[edit]

April 12, 2025

[edit]

April 11, 2025

[edit]

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]

March 31, 2025

[edit]

March 30, 2025

[edit]

March 29, 2025

[edit]

March 28, 2025

[edit]

March 27, 2025

[edit]

March 20, 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:Saint_Petersburg._Chinese_Garden._Sakura_tree2014_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Prunus in flower in Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The photo is not very clear and not adequately categorized. --Kızıl 07:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
     Comment I don't understand what do you mean by "clear", sorry. As for categories, there's no need to categorise every image in more general category if this general category is done properly. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support While the background is not exactly great, image quality is good enough IMO. However, I added Category:Unidentified Prunus, because at least the genus should be mentioned in a category. And yes, a botanical category should be added to each photo of a plant. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
     Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust: I think that in this special case there's no need for separate categorization of every image in the category, because all these images depict the same tree in the same small garden. This is a very famous tree in our city, in its own way an iconic one. It was presented by Shanghai in honor of the 300th anniversary of Saint Petersburg. Of course, only locals know these details, and Commons is an international project where most users are unaware of this, but still, it seems to me that Unidentified Prunus category, added to the general category of this tree, will be enough. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 12:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

File:თბილისი_-_ბოტანიკური_ბაღი_0974.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Frogs in the National Botanical Garden of Georgia in Tbilisi, Georgia. --Phyrexian 19:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose for now. Image quality may be sufficient, even though the animal on the left is somewhat OOF, but identification of the animals should include the genus at least. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm not an expert, but I think I recognize the animal as a frog. Whether it's male, female, or diverse, I can't judge, but it's irrelevant for the quality of the photo as I think. -- Spurzem 10:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
     Info Lack of identification is an issue of value according to the rules, because a photo of some unidentified frogs on some unidentified water lilies in a botanical garden is hardly usable anywhere. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

File:ETH-BIB-Monaco,_Jardin_exotique_Echinocactus-Dia_247-05516.tif

[edit]

  • Nomination ETH-Bibliothek and has been published on Wikimedia Commons as part of a cooperation with Wikimedia CH. Corrections and additional information are welcome. By User:ETH-Bibliothek --Jerimee 23:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Even though ETH-Bibliothek has uploaded that, I don't think that is qualifies as "taken by a Commons user". How to others see that? --Plozessor 03:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
    I think you're right, but maybe we can send it to CR section to have other opinions? --Екатерина Борисова 03:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
    We're unsure whether this counts as "taken by a Commons user" and would like to hear other opinions. --Plozessor 06:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is not eligible IMO because the photo is from Leo Wehrli, who cannot be a Commons user. In addition, the image is very blurry and noisy, which might be acceptable for such an ancient photo, but it is still very blurry even at 2 megapixels, which means that the usable resolution is way below the minimum acceptable level. I don't know whether the text is considered to be a watermark that is not allowed either. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Б._Морская,_15_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Exterior details of former Russian Trade & Industry Bank building, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The photo is leaning out. Please fix. --XRay 04:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Tried to fix --Екатерина Борисова 07:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
    I added two notes. --XRay 14:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
    I see, thanks. But, to be honest, this pursuit of verticals does not seem adequate to me. I understand that when the building is clearly tilted and the perspective is distorted, this is not good, but when it's all about one or two degrees of deviation from the vertical of some detail in the picture, this is somehow too much. At the same time, a photo of the arch is being discussed in CR section, which is clearly crooked, and a chorus of people are saying that this is normal, the perspective is OK. Or maybe there are different rules for different people, and what is allowed for one is not allowed for the other? --Екатерина Борисова 00:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose There are no different rules, but everyone evaluates differently. At first glance, I was very confused by this photo. The reason is the verticals. You are welcome to add the photo to the discussion. --XRay 05:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not chasing the number of QI, and I'm sending this photo to the discussion section not to argue, but to hear other opinions that might be useful. --Екатерина Борисова 03:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per XRay, perspective needs to be corrected. --Sebring12Hrs 11:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support We have a view slightly from left to right. What against? I see no lack. -- Spurzem 10:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

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)
  •  Support Absolutely ok to me. Right side in focus. The left edge is a bit unfocused, but good overall. --Sebring12Hrs 09:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Edges are slightly OOF but that is acceptable. Picture is good. --Plozessor 11:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:45, 12 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)
  •  Oppose Per COM:FOP France no FOP for 2D artworks, so this is a copyright violation. --Tagooty 03:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment This is a XIX century church. No artwork is protected for that long. Jakubhal 05:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
      •  Comment If it is declined for this reason, I will nominate the image again... --Sebring12Hrs 11:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
        •  Comment Per Jakubhal I've struck out my oppose. --Tagooty 03:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Tagooty (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • 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
  • Fri 11 Apr → Sat 19 Apr
  • Sat 12 Apr → Sun 20 Apr
  • Sun 13 Apr → Mon 21 Apr
  • Mon 14 Apr → Tue 22 Apr