Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
→‎March 25, 2010: Western Lowland Gorilla
Line 80: Line 80:
Image:Taiwan 2009 Taipei Liberty Plaza Gateway at Chian Kai Shek Cultural Center FRD 7312.jpg|{{/Promotion| Liberty Plaza Archways in Taipei. --[[User:Fred Hsu|Fred Hsu]] 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)|nice --[[User:Mbdortmund|Mbdortmund]] 22:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)}}
Image:Taiwan 2009 Taipei Liberty Plaza Gateway at Chian Kai Shek Cultural Center FRD 7312.jpg|{{/Promotion| Liberty Plaza Archways in Taipei. --[[User:Fred Hsu|Fred Hsu]] 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)|nice --[[User:Mbdortmund|Mbdortmund]] 22:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)}}


Image:Mushroom Säppi.jpg|{{/Nomination|Mushroom and moss. Resubmission on behalf of [[:User:Kallerna]]. Same image, but now with appropriate description --[[User:Fred Hsu|Fred Hsu]] 02:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)|}}
Image:Mushroom Säppi.jpg|{{/Promotion|Mushroom and moss. Resubmission on behalf of [[:User:Kallerna]]. Same image, but now with appropriate description --[[User:Fred Hsu|Fred Hsu]] 02:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)|ithink is good enough -~~~~}}


Image:Monastery of El Escorial 09.jpg|{{/Promotion| Fountains in the Monastery of El Escorial, Spain --[[User:Bgag|Bgag]] 00:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |good --[[User:Mbdortmund|Mbdortmund]] 22:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)}}
Image:Monastery of El Escorial 09.jpg|{{/Promotion| Fountains in the Monastery of El Escorial, Spain --[[User:Bgag|Bgag]] 00:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |good --[[User:Mbdortmund|Mbdortmund]] 22:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)}}

Revision as of 04:45, 26 March 2010

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 --''yourname'' (ctrl-click)">[[User:yourname|yourname]] 23:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  • (Chances are your comment won't be shown anyway).

March 25, 2010

March 24, 2010

March 23, 2010

March 22, 2010

March 21, 2010

March 20, 2010

March 19, 2010

March 18, 2010

March 17, 2010

March 14, 2010

March 13, 2010

March 12, 2010

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 - 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  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".

Consensual Review

File:MHPF avers.JPG

  • Nomination Medal of Honour of the French Police, with reduction, face.----Jebulon 21:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion Resolution and sharpness ok, but tinted and some noise. -- Smial 08:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Noise and tint reduced. -- Smial 08:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

File:MHPF revers.JPG

  • Nomination Medal of Honour of the French Police, with reduction, back. Name cancelled by nominator. ----Jebulon 21:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion Resolution and sharpness ok, but tinted and some noise. -- Smial 08:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Now noise and tint reduced. -- Smial 08:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Nordkirchen-chin 0115 DSC 6378.jpg

  • Nomination sculpture of chinese musician, detail --Mbdortmund 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support good close-up --George Chernilevsky 20:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, blurred. My mistake with support wote :( --George Chernilevsky 14:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose At 100% it's realy blur --croucrou
  •  Oppose And it looks like motion blur to me. --Ikar.us 14:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, good view, but motion blur. -- Smial 23:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Ikar.us 14:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

File:SugarCookie.JPG

  • Nomination Sugar cookie --Jonathunder 15:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Tight crop but tasty --Herbythyme 17:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Too tight, in my opinion. Framing is an important element of quality - Alvesgaspar 21:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now.--Ankara 18:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Herbythyme 13:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Image:-_Crocus_-.jpg

  • Nomination Found this in the 'unassessed' category and thought it deserves a re-nomination. Photo by User:Nino Barbieri --MichaelBueker 00:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support QI. Looks better than File:Digitale.JPG now on consensual review below. --Elekhh 00:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Has more bright white area, and the rest looks unsharp to me. No fine structures of the flowers - don't they have any? --Ikar.us 07:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry. I prefer "my" File:Digitale.JPG (but IMO, there's nothing to compare, except the colour, maybe...).----Jebulon 22:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Jebulon 22:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Image:Chateau-de-Rochebrune2.jpg

  • Nomination Château de Rochebrune (16), France --Croucrou 19:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion What do you think about a little correction of persdpective like in File:Chateau-de-Rochebrune2 retouched.jpg --Mbdortmund 07:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    Massive perspective distortion, not corrected within a week. --Elekhh 23:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment Sorry but i don't understand i can modify the picture in the voting process. Now the correction have been done. --Croucrou 12:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop on the left. --Elekhh 00:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose same per Elekhh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Hsu (talk • contribs) 2010-03-24T04:22:09 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not enough room for correction. And tower top looks worse than before. --Ikar.us 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Ikar.us 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Porin rautatieasema.jpg

  • Nomination Pori railway station. --kallerna 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Perspective must be corrected --Herbythyme 19:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
     Comment I really don't know what is wrong with perspective and I can't unfortunelately correct it. You can decline it or try to fix it by yourself. --kallerna 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Perspective doesn't looks wrong to me (I'm against the dictatorship of pure and absolute verticality). Nice "northern" light, good frame and sharpness. Usefull for "Commons". Promotion seems evident to me.--Jebulon 17:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  •  Support Why discussed, when there wer no supporters nor opponents? Don't see the perspective a problem here. --Ikar.us 23:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support For me the perspective is normal, Good Picture --Croucrou (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Geometric distortion -- Alvesgaspar 22:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am not a fan of the perspective police however this is wrong to me --Herbythyme 07:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Temporary  Oppose. Perspective correction need --George Chernilevsky 14:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I Gave an opinion some days ago, but didn't vote, I mean. So, I support.----Jebulon 22:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Not every achitectual photo must be corrected at all costs. This image works very well as it is. -- Smial 23:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   ----Jebulon 22:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Orangutan in Paignton Zoo.jpg

  • Nomination Orangutan in Paignton Zoo, UK.--Nilfanion 12:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment What's the point of this image? If the orangutan looked back it would have been different. Fred Hsu 17:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I actually find the composition very effective, lets see what others think. --Herbythyme 19:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support I understood Fred Hsu to have opposed this as he declined it however to me there is a real point to this image. If you want a zoo picture of an orangutang this may not be but if you want an image of animal behaviour in a zoo I would suggest this is a very well caught image. Anyone who has lived with a cat knows how they "ignore" you with their backs turned. To me this image shows that behaviour in a zoo animal and is certainly QI. --Herbythyme 12:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I showed my wife this image. She loved it. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps I'll support this image if she wakes up tomorrow and still remembers this picture. Fred Hsu 02:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Your wife has good taste --Herbythyme 07:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    •  Support OK. Now I support it :) Fred Hsu 03:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Not the animal, but it's behavior is well shown. --Ikar.us 14:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Ikar.us 14:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Mushroom Säppi kallerna.jpg

  • Nomination Birch bolete (Leccinum scabrum) and Polytrichastrum formosum in Säppi. --kallerna 12:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The moss (grass) before this mushroom has very accurately, it is the focal length point. Mushroom as the main object most total not sharp. Really sad, nice object. --George Chernilevsky 13:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting pic, nice habitat. --PetarM 23:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per George. Good useful picture but the mushroom is not the sharp part. --Herbythyme 16:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Why the moss couldn't be the object also? IMO the composition of version 1 is better, what do u think? --kallerna 13:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like both v1 and v2 very much. Rename these files to (specific) mushroom and (specific) moss. I will promote them then. Fred Hsu 21:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Now? --kallerna 10:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Now I support this nomination. In fact, I changed your nomination title here as well. I hope that is kosher. I also renominated your v1. Fred Hsu 01:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support beautiful boken in background, beautiful picture --Croucrou 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --kallerna 16:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Digitale.JPG

  • Nomination Flowers of digitalis purpurea.----Jebulon 23:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Enough DOF for much of the plant to be sharp, nevertheless well detached from background. --Ikar.us 02:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Petals are overexposed. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree,DOF good. Croping such flower is not easy and flower is so nice. --PetarM 21:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed, bad crop and framing. --kallerna 13:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for "in vivo" --Archaeodontosaurus 16:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Many small issues add up: minor overexposure on petals, too busy background (brown line disturbing), not so good framing. --Elekhh 00:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --kallerna 13:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)