Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:

Česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Македонски | 日本語 | Polski | Português | +/−

Skip to nominations Skip to nominations
float

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Contents

[edit] Purpose

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.

[edit] Guidelines

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

[edit] For nominators

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

[edit] Image page requirements
  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 must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms.
  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.
[edit] Creator

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. (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).

[edit] Technical requirements

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

[edit] Resolution

Graphics located on Commons may be used not only for viewing them on a screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices would be used in the future either, so it is important that pictures being nominated have a reasonably large resolution. 2 megapixels is normally the lower limit, but for 'easy to take' images, reviewers may demand more. (Not applicable for SVG images).

[edit] Image quality

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as 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.

[edit] Composition and lighting

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.

[edit] Value

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

[edit] How to nominate

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. Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is frowned upon.

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.

[edit] Evaluating images

Any registered user can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

[edit] How to review

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.

[edit] Grace period and promotion

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from 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.

[edit] How to execute decision

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 also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • 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

[edit] Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

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 May 2012 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

[edit] Consensual review process

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.

[edit] How to ask for consensual review

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 can not make a decision, add your comments, but leave the candidate on this page.

[edit] Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

[edit] Nominations

Due to changes in the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 04:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC). Thank you.

  1. Numbered list item

[edit] May 23, 2012

[edit] May 22, 2012

[edit] May 21, 2012

[edit] May 20, 2012

[edit] May 19, 2012

[edit] May 18, 2012

[edit] May 17, 2012

[edit] May 16, 2012

[edit] May 15, 2012

[edit] May 14, 2012

[edit] May 13, 2012

[edit] May 12, 2012

[edit] May 10, 2012

[edit] May 9, 2012

[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 - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text 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 image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg 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".

[edit] Consensual Review

Use the same format as is already here:

  • Add a heading, eg "===photo title==="
  • Add braces and a size to the image name, eg "[[Image:photo name.jpg|200px]]" (You have to do this, because it isn't in a gallery any more)
  • Change /Decline or /Accept to /Discuss.
  • Add a new line after the 2nd "|"
  • Put a new line before the final "}}"

[edit] File:Margrethe_I_Borgvold_2012-05-21.jpg

Margrethe I Borgvold 2012-05-21.jpg

  • Nomination The tourist boat "Margrethe I" at Golfsalon, Nørresø, Viborg, Denmark. --Slaunger 21:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC).
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice and not a bad picture but the technical achievement looks for me not so good: lacking sharpness of the boat --Taxiarchos228 21:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You mean the letters appear a bit soft at full resolution? Maybe you are right. I wonder why as I used a tripod. Maybe my aperture was too large? --Slaunger 21:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Not only the letters, I'm afraid, the whole boat lacks of sharpness, IMO too.--Jebulon 21:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Nice to see the bar has gone up, as then I need to get better, and I like to get better :D. --Slaunger 21:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure the bar has gone up, but I did not decline...--Jebulon 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see unsharpness here, just a halo around the ship's name (it could be removed with a 2px-clone stamp). Let's discuss. --Cayambe 08:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to try to improve it. Do not know how to fix it with a 2px-clone stamp though, but I could try later this evevning (I use GIMP). I also have another shot, which I want to inspect and compare with. --Slaunger 12:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe 13:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I did something simpleminded: I sharpened it a little. Better, or should I revert? --Slaunger 18:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It's better but I don't understand why you choose aperture f/5.6, with f/9 would have a much more and better depth of focus. Making picture with manual modus instead of Aperture priority / Aperture value increases quality of sharpness too. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Villa_Papendorf4.jpg

Villa Papendorf4.jpg

  • Nomination Deutsch: Villa Papendorf --An-d 18:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good ! -- JLPC 20:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    sorry, but CA, muddy impression, distortion are too many disabilities for QI --Taxiarchos228 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you fore your reviews! I try to fix CA and distortion. Best regards --An-d 17:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Finistère Pointe du Raz 005.JPG

Finistère Pointe du Raz 005.JPG

  • Nomination Pointe du Raz, the most western point of France. --Moonik 12:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very good! -- MJJR 21:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    The people is too dark. White halo on the edges (see the note on the gull). Lack of fine detail--Lmbuga 22:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting question.svg Question How to improve it? I have no longer the RAW file. --Moonik 15:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know, but I don't like the image, perhaps I'm not right, others can think--Lmbuga 21:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Christoph_Riedl.JPG

Christoph Riedl.JPG

  • Nomination Austrian TV-Presenter Christoph Riedl --AleXXw 07:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good I would suggest a small left crop .--ArildV 10:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    Unbalanced composition. I don't like the detail, perhaps lack of fine detail--Lmbuga 19:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ismo_Vorstermans.JPG

Ismo Vorstermans.JPG

  • Nomination Ismo Vorstermans a dutch player for Fc Utrecht --Abigor 13:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)]]
  • Discussion Colour composition and sharpness could be better. --Randy43 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)*And you are all but neutralAbigor 14:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Erik_Cummins.JPG

Erik Cummins.JPG

  • Nomination Erik Cummins the goalie for Fc Utrecht --Abigor 13:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Picture is not bad, but the cut is not so good. --Randy43 14:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC) *And you are all but neutralAbigor 14:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Randy43. And chromatic aberrations (see notes), seems tilted, dark top (perhaps a bit underexposed)--Lmbuga 15:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:BMW_Welt,_Múnich,_Alemania_2012-04-28,_DD_03.JPG

BMW Welt, Múnich, Alemania 2012-04-28, DD 03.JPG

  • Nomination BMW Welt, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 07:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion poor image quality (very low details, looks like a too strong denoising) --Carschten 13:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    I agree with Carschten, but that is one hell of a cool building. Mattbuck 13:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    New version uploaded Poco a poco 22:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    Better, but there are still some quality issues (pixelation, see annotation) and CA. --Carschten 10:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    New try Poco a poco 20:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Let's discuss. --Carschten 20:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Can be so will look slightly better? (the file is updated) --Aleks G 00:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    It's better, but not good enough yet. Mattbuck 02:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To be honest, I believe that it is good enough for QI. I cannot apprecieate those problems in a 100% view. It would be great if somebody else expresses his/her opinion Poco a poco 20:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Prunus spinosa flowers in Sweden.jpg

Prunus spinosa flowers in Sweden.jpg

  • Nomination Prunus spinosa (sloe) flowers. -- Green Yoshi 14:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Mattbuck 10:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Many blurred surface. May be a new frame. --Archaeodontosaurus 15:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Archaeodontosaurus--Lmbuga 19:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cardiff Queen Street railway station MMB 01 121032.jpg

Cardiff Queen Street railway station MMB 01 121032.jpg

  • Nomination 121032 at Cardiff Queen Street. Mattbuck 20:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. JLPC 22:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Too dark IMO. No details, I can't see the wheels, for instance.--Jebulon 09:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Batterie_d'honneur_de_l'artillerie_française_-_Investiture_présidentielle_du_15_mai_2012_-_031.jpg

Batterie d'honneur de l'artillerie française - Investiture présidentielle du 15 mai 2012 - 031.jpg

  • Nomination La batterie d'honneur de l'artillerie installée sur l'esplanade des Invalide après le tir de la salve de 21 coups de canon en l'honneur du nouveau président de la république française. --Thesupermat 07:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. -- Rama 08:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is overexposed, posterized (maybe overdone noise reduction), not sharp enought IMHO. --kallerna 12:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - for me the sky isn't interisting, the main object is good for QI --Ralf Roletschek 12:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed sky plus white spots on the image. --Iifar 09:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good. --Keymeulen 09:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - overexposed. Mattbuck 17:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy --Carschten 10:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy, as others--Lmbuga 20:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 10:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Batterie_d'honneur_de_l'artillerie_française_-_Investiture_présidentielle_du_15_mai_2012_-_037.jpg

Batterie d'honneur de l'artillerie française - Investiture présidentielle du 15 mai 2012 - 037.jpg

  • Nomination Artillerymen on Invalides esplanade after the 21 cannon shots honouring the new french president. --Thesupermat 07:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI for me. -- JLPC 07:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, IMO the crop isn't ideal (either too tight at left hand side or then should be cropped to the soldiers(?)). English description would also be nice. --kallerna 12:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crop. --Keymeulen 11:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:122-mm-Haubitze_M-30.JPG

122-mm-Haubitze M-30.JPG

  • Nomination M-30 122 mm howitzer --LutzBruno 21:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposure, and I don't think much of the composition. --Mattbuck 19:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable IMO.--Jebulon 09:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment chromatic aberrations on the edges of the left trees and on the edges of the truck. Perhaps acceptable, I'm not sure--Lmbuga 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:B1000_NVA-Bus.JPG

B1000 NVA-Bus.JPG

  • Nomination IFA B 1000 (NVA) --LutzBruno 21:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC) ist mir zu weitwinklig. --Ralf Roletschek 07:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed. --Mattbuck 19:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In spite of some minor CA, the picture is not so bad and could be QI, IMO. Please discuss--Jebulon 09:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Commentsorry my english, what means "In spite of some minor CA"?--LutzBruno 17:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Minor CA, but fine detail--Lmbuga 20:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Iifar 05:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Richmond railway station MMB 01 378019.jpg

Richmond railway station MMB 01 378019.jpg

  • Nomination 378019 at Richmond. Mattbuck 18:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed --Archaeodontosaurus 09:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    There are areas of pure white iirc, so it is not underexposed. Mattbuck 21:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI don't know if it is underexposed or not, but it is simply too dark, IMO.--Jebulon 10:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - new, lighter version uploaded. FYI there were isolated pixels of black, but no contiguous areas. Mattbuck 02:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tatra_T148NTt_Sattelzugmaschine_vorn.JPG

Tatra T148NTt Sattelzugmaschine vorn.JPG

  • Nomination Deutsch: Tatra T148NTt Sattelzugmaschine --LutzBruno 21:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support seltenes Motiv sauber umgesetzt. Der Himmel stört mich nicht, da Hauptmotiv ordentlich belichtet ist. --Ralf Roletschek 07:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC).
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Good sharpness, but some CA plus partly overexposed sky. --Iifar 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose chromatic aberrations, noise (see notes) and plus partly overexposed sky--Lmbuga 20:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:T100-MGP_mit_Planiereinrichtung_D493A.JPG

T100-MGP mit Planiereinrichtung D493A.JPG

  • Nomination Deutsch: T100-MGP mit Planiereinrichtung D493A --LutzBruno 21:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality., Der Himmel stört mich nicht, da Hauptmotiv ordentlich belichtet ist. --Ralf Roletschek 07:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC).
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Same here, good sharpness, but some CA and partly overexposed sky. --Iifar 16:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose As Iifar--Lmbuga 20:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bombyliidae_2_by_kadavoor.jpg

Bombyliidae 2 by kadavoor.jpg

  • Nomination Bombyliidae, Subgenus Geron -- Jkadavoor 09:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting question.svg QuestionWhat is that super-bright spot between the wings?--Gauravjuvekar 16:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Clearly it's a firefly who has had its arse replaced with a halogen bulb. Mattbuck 19:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't reckon fireflies are this bright.--Gauravjuvekar 08:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown highlight, insufficiently id'ed. Biopics 14:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeInsufficiently id'ed--Lmbuga 20:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Iifar 05:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

Tue 15 May → Wed 23 May
Wed 16 May → Thu 24 May
Thu 17 May → Fri 25 May
Fri 18 May → Sat 26 May
Sat 19 May → Sun 27 May
Sun 20 May → Mon 28 May
Mon 21 May → Tue 29 May
Tue 22 May → Wed 30 May
Wed 23 May → Thu 31 May
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Participate
Toolbox