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 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 29 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]] 09:35, 29 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 29, 2025

[edit]

March 28, 2025

[edit]

March 27, 2025

[edit]

March 26, 2025

[edit]

March 25, 2025

[edit]

March 24, 2025

[edit]

March 23, 2025

[edit]

March 22, 2025

[edit]

March 21, 2025

[edit]

March 20, 2025

[edit]

March 19, 2025

[edit]

March 18, 2025

[edit]

March 17, 2025

[edit]

March 16, 2025

[edit]

March 15, 2025

[edit]

March 14, 2025

[edit]

March 13, 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:A_manhole_cover_19.09.24_in_Istanbul_04.jpg

[edit]

File:A_manhole_cover_19.09.24_in_Istanbul_05.jpg

[edit]

File:Sainghin_clocher_eglise.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of the Saint-Nicolas Church bell tower, in Sainghin-en-Mélantois, France --Velvet 11:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 12:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
    I disagree, overexposed for me. --Olivier LPB 16:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Lotus_Emira_rear.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rear view of Lotus Emira --TTTNIS 10:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 07:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The leaning background spoils the compo. --Sebring12Hrs 14:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Důl_Lazy,_Orlová_(2021)_55.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lazy mine in 2021 before the skip tower blasting, Orlová-Lazy, Czechia --Plánovací kalendář 12:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    A lot of spots in the sky and the verticals should be fixed --Ermell 21:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Ermell, Plánovací kalendář: dust spot removed (I hope all of them) and perspective correction performed. Very interesting place. Please, check the result. --Harlock81 15:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
    Moving to CR. --Plánovací kalendář 14:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Důl_Lazy,_Orlová_(2021)_42.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lazy mine in 2021 before the skip tower blasting, Orlová-Lazy, Czechia --Plánovací kalendář 12:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Comment Dust spot on the right-hand side of the sky and perspettive correction needed. --Harlock81 12:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Dust spot removed, and Perspective Correction done. Please, may a third user check the image? --Harlock81 19:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
    Moving to CR. --Plánovací kalendář 14:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Důl_Lazy,_Orlová_(2021)_35.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lazy mine in 2021 before the skip tower blasting, Orlová-Lazy, Czechia --Plánovací kalendář 12:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    A lot of work to do removing the spots in the sky. --Ermell 22:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Yeah there's been way too many. I wouldn't clear my sensor back then. How about now? --Plánovací kalendář 14:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
    Good result but you should remove the CA at the left top of the roof. --Ermell 21:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
    @Ermell: What about now? --Plánovací kalendář 07:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
    Moving to CR. --Plánovací kalendář 14:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 23:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Důl_Lazy,_Orlová_pano_(2021)_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lazy mine in 2021 before the skip tower blasting, Orlová-Lazy, Czechia --Plánovací kalendář 12:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Please check the verticals, reduce the noise and remove the spots in the sky. --Ermell 22:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
    Tried my best on this one. --Plánovací kalendář 14:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry but the result is not acceptable. Look at the left and the right building and try to get the sides vertical. --Ermell 21:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
    @Ermell: What about now? --Plánovací kalendář 07:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
    Moving to CR. --Plánovací kalendář 14:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 23:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Yeşil_Türbe_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yeşil Türbe in Bursa, Turkey --Bgag 03:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    perspective distortion, correction is needed. --F. Riedelio 08:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
     Support IMO OK as low-angle shot. --XRay 05:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Completly distorded, I don't understand how we can support this perspective, even with this angle. --Sebring12Hrs 09:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Cat–IMG_5714.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Black and white cat with green eyes, in garden. --Kızıl 18:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Kadı 18:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice shot, but the cat is blurry (and the wires too) and its legs are cut. --Екатерина Борисова 02:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not enough space around the cat, cut legs. Filename should be improved too. -- XRay 06:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF too low, face too dark, legs cut off, no location, too generic description. --Plozessor 08:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: Екатерина Борисова, XRay, Plozessor, I did not edit the photo afterwards. So I didn't cut the photo. I took it with 55 mm. Kızıl 08:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  • In this case: post-processing is always recommended, but with this photo it might have helped to take a picture in portrait format. --XRay 10:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  • @Kızıl Maybe a misunderstanding, with "legs cut off" I didn't mean that you cut them off in post-processing. They 'are cut off, this simply means that they are missing from the picture. --Plozessor 03:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Pez_lagarto_jaspeado_(Synodus_variegatus),_Zanzíbar,_Tanzania,_2024-06-01,_DD_76.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Variegated lizardfish (Synodus variegatus), Zanzibar, Tanzania --Poco a poco 16:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Little bit blurry --A S M Jobaer 18:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for an underwater picture. --Plozessor 03:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor. --Benjism89 18:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Benji 18:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Herderplatz_14_in_Weimar.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wilhelm-Ernst-Gymnasium at Herderplatz 14 in Weimar, Thuringia, Germany. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 09:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The facade of the large building in the center appears unnaturally distorted. But that should be correctable. -- Spurzem 15:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 08:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not sure whether @Spurzem's comment should be taken as a vote or not. I agree that it's quite distorted and would skew it to something like this: https://ibb.co/kgJbTXMv. --Plozessor 03:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Lol this is exactly the same picture ! I don't know how did you do, but both pictures are just one picture. --Sebring12Hrs 10:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The building is too distorted, it looks like it's about to fall to the right. Meanwhile the version suggested by Plozessor looks much more natural. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is exactly the same picture. --Sebring12Hrs 10:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Tournasol7: Hello ! There anything you can do about it ? The version suggested by Plozessor seems more realistic. --Sebring12Hrs 14:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Magical_City_Dhaka_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Magical City DhakaI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This media has been uploaded as a part of Project Korikath --A S M Jobaer 14:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Picture is good but needs better description and categorization. Existing categories are related to your activity, but not to the image. Again, note that commons is not about photos as a form of art, it's about photos for educational and documentary purposes. --Plozessor 05:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
    I've changed the categories --A S M Jobaer 13:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please do not send anything to CR without a vote with which you disagree. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still acking proper description.
  •  Comment The unsigned vote above is from Plozessor, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AQuality_images_candidates%2Fcandidate_list&diff=1013290481&oldid=1013290012. Please always sign your votes! --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I've added a better description and categories. A precise location in Dhaka would be welcome, but I can live without it. Interesting and good quality picture. --Benjism89 18:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Benjism89 18:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Exchange_Wedding_Ring.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Benji 18:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Tamagokake-gohan_001.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rice with raw egg and soy sauce. Food culture in Japan. --Ocdp 12:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Need proper details --A S M Jobaer 15:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment In Japan, we eat raw chicken eggs. This is called Tamago kake gohan, and it has been established as a part of our food culture. We proposed this illustration as a reference to the unique culture of eating raw eggs.--Ocdp 15:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
      •  Comment@Ocdp: Please add the description to the image page. An english description is very important for your images as many people aren't able to read japanese letters. Please also add them to Pholiota microspora miso soup 001.jpg and Mekabu 001.jpg --D-Kuru 01:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
        •  Comment OK,already done.--Ocdp 11:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
          •  Comment @A S M Jobaer: Description was added in english. Is that fine for you now? --D-Kuru 12:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice, although I would prefer a background with less texture. Excellent lighting. --Smial 19:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Rice could be a bit sharper, but overall quality is acceptable, IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment I suspect it might be that sticky Japanese rice (with a certain resemblance to the rice popular in Spain for paella), which looks different from the usual long grain rice from the cooking bag. --Smial 19:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment The rice variety is quite common in Japan: Koshihikari from Ibaraki Prefecture.--Ocdp 11:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Not perfectly sharp, but OK IMO. --Benjism89 18:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Западные_врата_и_Троицкая_церковь_в_Смоленском_зимой.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Holy Trinity church, Yaroslavl (by Чуринъ) --FBilula 14:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Looks underexposed --Imehling 10:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good and sharp photo under snow weather. --Sebring12Hrs 09:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Sebring12Hrs Hi, if you don't agree with my vote, put the nomination into the consensual review section, but don't just cancel it. --Imehling 16:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I didn't cancel anything, you don't vote, you don't put any opposing vote. --Sebring12Hrs 19:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, the oppose got lost somehow. Sorry. --Imehling 07:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Imehling. --Smial 19:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me Юрий Д.К. 18:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Surprisingly good for such weather conditions. WB could be better, but acceptable as it is IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 21 Mar → Sat 29 Mar
  • Sat 22 Mar → Sun 30 Mar
  • Sun 23 Mar → Mon 31 Mar
  • Mon 24 Mar → Tue 01 Apr
  • Tue 25 Mar → Wed 02 Apr
  • Wed 26 Mar → Thu 03 Apr
  • Thu 27 Mar → Fri 04 Apr
  • Fri 28 Mar → Sat 05 Apr
  • Sat 29 Mar → Sun 06 Apr