Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nominations

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]] 18:45, 28 May 2024 (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 14, 2024

May 13, 2024

May 12, 2024

May 11, 2024

May 10, 2024

May 9, 2024

May 8, 2024

May 7, 2024

May 6, 2024

May 5, 2024

May 4, 2024

May 3, 2024

May 2, 2024

May 1, 2024

April 30, 2024

April 29, 2024

April 28, 2024

April 26, 2024

Consensual review

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_Segolene_church_in_Soual_(12).jpg

  • Nomination Saint Segolene church in Soual (by Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 15:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not sharp enough. Why is this image presented for QI? -- Spurzem 19:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    It is absolutely very sharp. I don't understand your vote, is it a mistake ? --Sebring12Hrs 20:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support Must be. To me this is very much sharp. --Nacaru 00:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Rippel_im_Sand_am_Strand_Norderneys_03.jpg

  • Nomination ripple marks at the beach of Norderney --Stephan Sprinz 19:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose oversharpened, sorry --Nikride 09:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    I uploaded a new version --Stephan Sprinz 16:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Paysage_de_fin_de_journée_à_la_Galite.jpg

  • Nomination Paysage de fin de journée à la Galite.jpg --Atef Ouni 11:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Acroterion 01:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose noisy sky, sorry --Nikride 09:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I agree with Nikride. I'm sorry. --Nacaru 00:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Cáceres_-_Towers_of_San_Francisco_Javier.jpg

  • Nomination Cáceres (Extremadura, Spain) - Towers of St. Francis Xavier church, viewed from Plaza Santa Maria --Benjism89 11:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Colors look unnatural, can you correct it, Benjism89? --Nacaru 00:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


@Nacaru: Not sure which way you would like colors corrected, white balance seems OK to me. Do you feel it's oversaturated ? This picture was taken in the morning, maybe an hour after sunrise, hence the light. Benji 05:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Orchis_mâle,_montagne_de_la_Motte,_Champsaur,_France_03.jpg

  • Nomination Early Purple Orchid (Orchis mascula), Champsaur, France. --Yann 18:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    A bit noisy, otherwise good --MB-one 20:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support OK for me. --C messier 20:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Too much noisy, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_02.jpg

  • Nomination Double-headed eagle of Russia on the top of Znamenka palace. Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Somewhat tight crop, and somewhat noisy, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 11:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy --Nikride 13:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support can't agree with opposers. Noise and unsharpness starts only if you zoom image so hard, so upper crown would fill all the screen. That's borderline but ok for me. Красный 22:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Some noise and processing artifacts at full resolution, but that is high and it looks perfectly fine at lower, still adequate, resolution. --Plozessor 04:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality - "sharpness" is relative to magnification and unless this building detail is blown out of proportion it appears to meet acceptable standards for QI. --Scotch Mist 06:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_03.jpg

  • Nomination Exterior detail of Palace of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. Znamenka estate, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Somewhat tight crop, and somewhat noisy, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 11:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Красный 21:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality - "sharpness" is relative to magnification and unless this building detail is blown out of proportion it appears to meet acceptable standards for QI. --Scotch Mist 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_04.jpg

  • Nomination Window pediment of Palace of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. Znamenka estate, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Somewhat tight crop, and somewhat noisy, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 10:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Either some colleagues have problems with connection, so image is uploading badly or are being too strict. This photo is enough sharp to illustrate articles even in larger sizes. Красный 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough, given the high resolution. --Plozessor 04:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Salzburg_2014_01.jpg

  • Nomination Salzburg Hauptbahnhof --Perituss 18:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Would be good if not for the bicycles down right. Sorry --MB-one 20:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --C messier 20:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Technically the photo is sufficient for QI, and maybe someone is looking for a photo with the bicycles in front of the station? --Smial 11:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial -- Екатерина Борисова 21:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO the bicycles are not disturbing. --Plozessor 04:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Langfenn,_chiesa_di_San_Giacomo_08.jpg

  • Nomination Saint James church in Mölten, Italy --Syrio 09:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Please check the verticals. --Ermell 19:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
    Uhm they look good to me; could you explain? --Syrio 10:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    The church is leaning out when you look at the left side of the tower and the right side of the house. --Ermell 14:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    Uuuhm yeah but that's how it looks from this point of view? I'd have to warp the photo to make those lines vertical, the perspective would look wrong and I'm not really willing to do that :| --Syrio 15:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support Looks good to me. Verticals seem in accordance with the perspective of the image. --Lrkrol 14:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Lrkrol. At least it's better than too strong a correction. --Smial 11:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Grande_aigrette.jpg

  • Nomination Great egret in Djerba. By User:Skander zarrad --TOUMOU 17:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Lrkrol 18:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Lighting too harsh, insufficient contrast between subject and background. Sensor spot top-left (fixable). --Tagooty 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Tagooty --Nikride 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tagooty. Красный 21:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Photographers_in_Rabat.jpg

  • Nomination Photographers at Mausoleum Mohammed V, Rabat --PetarM 13:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romainbehar 19:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The photographers are quite good but the post on the right adds nothing to the image (move to the left a little). Also, the three people in the background are too distracting, particularly the man in the middle doing something with his nose. --GRDN711 17:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I opposed at FP but think this is perfectly fine for QI. BigDom 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --AuHaidhausen 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Chapelle_Saint-Grégoire_(Marckolsheim).jpg

  • Nomination Saint-Grégoire Chapel in Marckolsheim (Bas-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 19:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, too dark and tilted --Jacek Halicki 21:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way underexposed. --Kallerna 15:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Better ? Gzen92 20:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now, the white is bright as it should be but there is still detail there. BigDom 00:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per BigDom. --Smial 11:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --Plozessor 04:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Badajoz_-_Puerta_de_Palmas_-_01.jpg

  • Nomination Badajoz (Extremadura, Spain) - Puerta de Palmas‎ --Benjism89 14:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 18:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It needs a perspective correction, top crop too tight --Poco a poco 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 07:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Poco a poco and Sebring12Hrs: Although I don't really agree with the demands for perspective correction (in my opinion, perspective correction should only be used when your subject is two-dimensional and you're not interested about everything around, which is not the case here), I did correct perspective and uncrop the top of it. Benjism89 11:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks better now to my eye. BigDom 03:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Nacaru 09:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, and possibly a slight cushion distortion. Foreground somewhat dark, but still acceptable. Irrespective of the fact that the image sharpness is definitely sufficient considering the image resolution: Is f/14 the "sweet spot" with the lens used or are we already seeing the first effects of diffraction blurring here? I would probably have used f/5.6 or f/8 with my cheap Tamron zoom (it's very soft at open aperture...), because from f/16 it gets visibly worse again. --Smial 23:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial, sorry but the perspective correction is to strong. --Sebring12Hrs 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Οικία_των_ψηφιδωτών,_Ερέτρια_1584.jpg

  • Nomination House of the Mosaics, Ancient Eretria. --C messier 22:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 06:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree. Don't really understand the composition here. White wall at the back is showing on the right side, none of the bottom elements align. --Nacaru 08:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition/Perspective per Nacaru --Plozessor 04:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Nacaru 23:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Schleswig-Holstein,_Todenbüttel,_Friedhof_NIK_0569.jpg

  • Nomination Grab auf dem Friedhof von Todenbüttel --Nightflyer 11:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Tight crop. --SHB2000 23:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support Tight crop, seriously ? --Sebring12Hrs 22:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support The crop's fine to me. --ReneeWrites 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 Support Looks OK to me. Nacaru 23:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 Support--ArildV 07:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral To be honest, I'm not entirely happy with the photo. On the one hand, the lighting is very harsh, resulting in very hard shadows. Ok, many people think that's great because it suggests high image sharpness. On the other hand, the photo looks crooked. I would probably have oriented the camera towards the background. Yes, then the grave cross is most likely crooked, but that is very often the case with these grave fields around old churches and would be a more realistic representation in my opinion. --Smial 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 08:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_072.jpg

  • Nomination Tympanum at the Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork --Scotch Mist 06:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Bad crops and not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 11:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Another perspective? --Scotch Mist 13:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. And noise. And a strange perspective. Was there no better position for the camera to photograph the object so that it doesn't look so crooked? --Smial 00:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 00:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_071.jpg

  • Nomination Tympanum at the Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork --Scotch Mist 05:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not very sharp and noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 00:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    This type of stone sculpture does not have the inherent sharpness of a precise marble sculpture and also given the aged colouring perhaps appears overly noisey but IMHO the image is still worthy of consideration for QI! --Scotch Mist 08:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. Also unfortunate lighting. --Smial 00:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 00:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_061.jpg

  • Nomination Relief of Madonna & The Magi at the Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork --Scotch Mist 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment I don't think it's sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 15:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    Another perspective? --Scotch Mist 22:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Sharpness seems acceptable but perspective is not ideal. --Plozessor 04:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_112.jpg

  • Nomination River View of St Mary's Church, High Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork (Lightened Shadows!) --Scotch Mist 06:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • IMHO, it is better with the darker shadows. --C messier 16:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Another perspective? --Scotch Mist 13:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I agree with C messier, it kinda makes it look processed with the current shadows. Nacaru 01:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done OK, thank you both for your comments - have reverted to previous version!--Scotch Mist 06:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  •  Support. Nacaru 00:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Current version seems ok. --Plozessor 04:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)