Butun axtardiqlarinizi tapmaq ucun buraya: DAXIL OLUN
  Video Mp3 Axtar Yukle
  Mp3 Yukle Mp3 Axtar
  Shekil Axtar Yukle
  Informasiya Melumat Axtar
  Hazir Inshalar Toplusu
  AZERI CHAT + Tanishliq
  1-11 Sinif Derslikler Yukle
  Saglamliq Tibbi Melumat
  Whatsapp Plus Yukle(Yeni)

Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from QIC)
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 May 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 May 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 May 09 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]] 19:16, 9 May 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).


May 9, 2025

[edit]

May 8, 2025

[edit]

May 7, 2025

[edit]

May 6, 2025

[edit]

May 5, 2025

[edit]

May 4, 2025

[edit]

May 3, 2025

[edit]

May 2, 2025

[edit]

May 1, 2025

[edit]

April 30, 2025

[edit]

April 29, 2025

[edit]

April 28, 2025

[edit]

April 27, 2025

[edit]

April 26, 2025

[edit]

April 24, 2025

[edit]

April 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:Miami,_Florida_skyline.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Miami, Florida skyline --Wilfredor 10:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Perspective correction is needed. Easy to fix with ShiftN. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 13:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Belit_Onay_2025_-_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Belit Onay in 2025 --Kadellar 14:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support A bit bright background, but for me good quality. --Jakubhal 17:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Not only the background is too bright, but the face and hands are also very bright. Furthermore, the gentleman's skin appears a bit yellow. Please discuss whether this photo is truly a quality image. -- Spurzem 08:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Iris_fiorentino.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Florentine iris.-- Anna.Massini 08:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 08:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 10:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp. --Kadellar 16:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kadellar, also too much noise --Jakubhal 05:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other. --Sebring12Hrs 09:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DoF, too much NR, too blurry. --Plozessor 10:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Pez_ballesta_boomerang_(Sufflamen_bursa),_Zanzíbar,_Tanzania,_2024-05-31,_DD_89.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lei Triggerfish (Sufflamen bursa), Zanzibar, Tanzania --Poco a poco 06:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The image is too blurred. --Mickaël en résidence 08:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO definitely sharp enough for an underwater photo. --Plozessor 03:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Veveyse_à_Vevey_-_Pont_de_l'avenue_des_Crosets_(nord-est).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Veveyse river as seen from the Avenue des Crosets bridge in Vevey. --Espandero 08:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment PC is needed and I think there are HDR artifacts or oversharpening. --Sebring12Hrs 08:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Sebring12Hrs cleaned the artifacts and applied some PC. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Espandero 20:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    Please fix the missing (red) categories, otherwise good quality imo. --Trougnouf 19:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Trougnouf: don't know why someone else added those. I removed them as I don't see the point if they don't exist. - Espandero 22:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Grunpfnul 16:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't know why this one looks overprocessed while the other was not. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 17:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It does look a bit overprocessed, almost as if there's been too much noise reduction.--Peulle 11:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed per others, especially visible in the leaves. Seems like too much NR + sharpening applied. Not normal for a picture taken with an APS-C sensor at ISO 160 in daylight. Guess it could be fixed with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 03:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Bandiera_della_Regione_Toscana_raffigurante_Pegaso.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flag of the Tuscany Region depicting Pegasus. --Anna.Massini 09:35, 05 may 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 10:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, posterized sky --Jakubhal 18:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Support Not too bad in an A4 size print. --Smial (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp, jpeg artifacts. --Kadellar 16:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Smartphone picture with low detail and much noise, cropped (the smartphone has a 64 MP camera but the picture has 7 MP). --Plozessor 03:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Shepherd Woman in Jammu and Kashmir, India 2018.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A woman from Bakarwal community of Jammu and Kashmir with her livestock. By User:Amitkanwar919 --UnpetitproleX 11:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition: The bottom side is cut off --Lmbuga 17:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition is not the best, but imho OK for me. Photo has high quality. --Tuxyso 22:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo, even though it's staged and the woman's right toe is cut off. -- Spurzem 09:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bottom crop spoils it. --Milseburg 18:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Regretfully, because the photo with proper framing would be staggering. However, I cannot support a picture where we are struggling with such a basic feature as showing the whole person without cutting off the feet. Jakubhal 05:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. Somewhat high colour saturation, could have some more pixels, somewhat tight crop, but great snapshot though. --Smial 09:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with the crop and color saturation, but the quality and the compo is above the QI bar to me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support May have a few minor deficiencies but is still clearly over the bar for me. --Plozessor 03:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Aw, man, such a pity, because it looks like a nice image ... but in terms of QI status, I think cutting off the main subject's toe like this spoils the quality of the composition.--Peulle 11:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Per Smial and Sebring12Hrs --Benjism89 17:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Benji 17:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Historic_Gatehouse_at_Kloster_Heisterbach.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The elegant 1750 gatehouse of Kloster Heisterbach, framed by spring blooms and cobbled paths, captured within the tranquil monastic grounds near Königswinter, Germany. --Reda Kerbouche 07:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Buidhe 01:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Needs PC --Wikisquack 16:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 09:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Branches are overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 20:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. --Plozessor 02:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange patterns in the branches.--Ermell 20:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 11:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 11:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Half-Timbered_House_on_Heisterbacher_Straße.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A charming half-timbered house at Heisterbacher Straße 109, Königswinter, Germany --Reda Kerbouche 07:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    I want to promote this but it would have come out better if the camera was pointed slightly higher to avoid the cut off building on the right --Buidhe 01:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good smartphone picture. --Sebring12Hrs 13:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per @Buidhe --Wikisquack 15:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Despite the vertical lines, the image appears distorted. I don't know if it can be improved. -- Spurzem 10:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Sebring12Hrs, main subject is good here. --Milseburg 18:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd skew and crop it a bit like here. --Plozessor 02:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Agree with Plozessor : it's loo late for a larger composition, so I think cropping it a little further would be better than this in-between composition. --Benjism89 17:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 18:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Tour_Azadi,_Téhéran_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Azadi Tower in Tehran, Iran. -- ZarlokX 10:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    There is CA around the edges, also seems to need some perspective correction (see subjects on the left) --A. Öztas 10:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info This should not be here. Please only set to "/Discuss" if there is a vote with which you disagree. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC needed - poles on left and right are leaning in. I'll change my vote if corrected. --Tagooty 04:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Tieso_ocelado_(Myrichthys_maculosus),_Zanzíbar,_Tanzania,_2024-05-29,_DD_87.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tiger snake eel (Myrichthys maculosus), Zanzibar, Tanzania --Poco a poco 12:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • The picture is pretty blurry. And why the square crop ? --ZarlokX 18:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Why not the square crop? what is the problem with that? Please, don't move to CR right away, promote or oppose. CR requires the involvement of 2 reviewers with different opinions --Poco a poco 20:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Not sure why this nom landed here, but ok Poco a poco 11:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's seems there is too much motion blur. --Sebring12Hrs 21:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The eel is sufficiently sharp, for an underwater image. --Tagooty 05:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough IMO.--Ermell 20:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I know underwater photography is difficult and we cannot expect perfect sharpness, but this is unfortunately under the bar for me. --Plozessor 03:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 09:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Thu 01 May → Fri 09 May
  • Fri 02 May → Sat 10 May
  • Sat 03 May → Sun 11 May
  • Sun 04 May → Mon 12 May
  • Mon 05 May → Tue 13 May
  • Tue 06 May → Wed 14 May
  • Wed 07 May → Thu 15 May
  • Thu 08 May → Fri 16 May
  • Fri 09 May → Sat 17 May
Informasiya Melumat Axtar