Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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


Contents

Nominations[edit]

Due to 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]] 14:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

April 23, 2014[edit]

April 22, 2014[edit]

April 21, 2014[edit]

April 20, 2014[edit]

April 19, 2014[edit]

April 18, 2014[edit]

April 17, 2014[edit]

April 16, 2014[edit]

April 15, 2014[edit]

April 14, 2014[edit]

April 13, 2014[edit]

April 12, 2014[edit]

April 11, 2014[edit]

April 10, 2014[edit]

April 09, 2014[edit]

April 08, 2014[edit]

April 07, 2014[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 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".


Consensual Review[edit]

File:Ljungdalen_April_2014_02.jpg[edit]

Ljungdalen April 2014 02.jpg

  • Nomination Mountain landscape with Montane Birch trees close to lake Öjön, Ljungdalen (Berg municipality, Jämtland county). --ArildV 07:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --NorbertNagel 10:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Charming indeed, but seems to me too much underexposed. The snow is very grey-brown, and looks almost like sand. I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 22:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version uploaded.--ArildV 10:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Snow can have many different colours, though I would expect somewhat more blue in the shadow areas. But we don't know the lighting really exact. -- Smial 13:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:2014-04-16_14-18-04_Chateau-Engelbourg-thann.jpg[edit]

2014-04-16 14-18-04 Chateau-Engelbourg-thann.jpg

  • Nomination Engelbourg castle, Thann, France. --ComputerHotline 18:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The bushes on the left side are blurred (motion by wind?)--SteveK 21:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Out of curiosity, what is the point of using a ND1000 filter here? --ArildV 08:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I can take the wind motion. --ComputerHotline 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC) QI imo.--ArildV 23:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI disagree, because the blurred bushes at the left side are not necessary for this motive --SteveK 17:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Backlit_Margarita_Island_Sunset_in_Las_Guevaras,_Venezuela_CaptureNX2.jpg[edit]

Backlit Margarita Island Sunset in Las Guevaras, Venezuela CaptureNX2.jpg

  • Nomination Backlit Margarita Island --Wilfredor 15:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI have supported the image in FP but the quality of the lower part is poor, not a QI to me like this and I have my doubts now about my vote in FPC, sorry, Poco a poco 18:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Si cambias tu voto, te asesinaré. Es broma :) , los votos en contra con buenos argumentos son bienvenidos, Un abrazo --Wilfredor 22:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Promoted as FP 8/0/2 == QI -- KTC 22:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry but that's not a valid argument IMHO --Poco a poco 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    Of course it is. The criteria for (non-historical photograph) FP is stricter and decided by more people than QI, but each to their own. -- KTC 23:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Foreground was underexposed when the photo was taken. Partial raising of exposure in the lower third of the image resulted in a raising noise level. It looks atmospheric but it lacks photographic quality for me. --Cccefalon 05:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 05:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Byland Abbey MMB 05.jpg[edit]

Byland Abbey MMB 05.jpg

  • Nomination Byland Abbey. Mattbuck 16:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good, maybe slightly tilted, though? --Poco a poco 21:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    It's quite possible it's tilted in reality, probable even. Mattbuck 16:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting -- Sanyambahga 17:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Muffin,_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_01.JPG[edit]

Muffin, Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomination Muffin, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam --Poco a poco 03:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Maathavan 12:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd like a discussion about my annotations, please.--Jebulon 15:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • ✓ New version with selective denoising Poco a poco 21:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Slightly better for the noise, but in comparison, (no offense) I prefer "my" DoF of my crown than "yours" of your cake Clin--Jebulon 14:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Liebfrauenkirche_Lienzingen-Aussen1.JPG[edit]

Liebfrauenkirche Lienzingen-Aussen1.JPG

  • Nomination View of the Church of Our Lady in Lienzingen. --SteveK 15:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose way too much noise, and bad light. --A.Savin 11:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment *✓ New versionI have try to fix the problems.--SteveK 09:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


✓ New version--SteveK (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:St Paul's Church Port Townsend.jpg[edit]

St Paul's Church Port Townsend.jpg

  • Nomination Church in Port Townsend --Adbar 06:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 09:50,18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral perspective distortion on the left; chromatic aberration on the cross and some edges; probably a bit overexposed highlights. --A.Savin 13:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried to correct part of it, is it better? --Adbar 21:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes. But the slight overexposure still doesn't let me support. --A.Savin 19:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --A.Savin 19:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Trompe l oeil Emperor's Courtyard Residenz Munich.jpg[edit]

Trompe l oeil Emperor's Courtyard Residenz Munich.jpg

  • Nomination Trompe l'oeil painting, Emperor's Courtyard, Residenz, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.--Jebulon 15:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --JLPC 16:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but the sharpness is clearly below today's QI standards. --A.Savin 21:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Jbribeiro1 02:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support quality image -- Sanyambahga 17:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me. --Cayambe 17:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. --P e z i 21:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Dalian_Liaoning_China_Public-clock-at-the-customs-office-01.jpg[edit]

Dalian Liaoning China Public-clock-at-the-customs-office-01.jpg

  • Nomination Public clock at the customs office in Dalian harbour, China. --Cccefalon 06:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Halavar 18:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think a more centered composition should be better. But the main issue here is the cornice below, which is distorded, and should be horizontaly straight, IMO.--Jebulon 19:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Jute_flower.JPG[edit]

Jute flower.JPG

  • Nomination jute flower in alaveddi, jaffna , northern province, sri lanka --Aathavan jaffna 14:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Maathavan 15:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp. --P e z i 23:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Teotihuacán,_México,_2013-10-13,_DD_05.JPG[edit]

Teotihuacán, México, 2013-10-13, DD 05.JPG

  • Nomination Teotihuacán, Mexico --Poco a poco 03:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose imo, this one is not sharp enough. Plus distorted and blurred edges. --A.Savin 08:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    I have done some improvements (crop, perspective, curves) and I am not sure whether this one is worse than all others, I hope you don't mind if you discuss it. --Poco a poco 17:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, this version I'll accept. --A.Savin 11:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --A.Savin 11:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:East Midlands Parkway railway station MMB 18.jpg[edit]

East Midlands Parkway railway station MMB 18.jpg

  • Nomination East Midlands Parkway railway station. Mattbuck 07:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion To dark, white balance not correct, the person is not sharp. --SteveK 07:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    White balance is correct, and I have brightened it. --Mattbuck 21:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, unsharp. --Nino Verde 11:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The white balance is still not correct. There's a blue tint over the hole picture (see the snow in the background and the white bird on the right poster). There is a CA at the "Welcome". The image is slightly out of focus, and the person has motion blur. --SteveK 17:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Wayside_shrine_Col_dala_Pelda_fresco_with_Madonna.jpg[edit]

Wayside shrine Col dala Pelda fresco with Madonna.jpg

  • Nomination Wayside shrine near the manor house Col dala Pelda in Sëlva Gherdëina. --Moroder 17:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overexposed bottom left. --Mattbuck 22:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. No way, Mattbuck. Give a look at the histogram of supposed OE area here! --Moroder 09:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me no overexposition. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Jebulon 23:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Пмз-интерьер-02-никольская-2-этаж-0104.jpg[edit]

Пмз-интерьер-02-никольская-2-этаж-0104.jpg

  • Nomination Interior of Nature department in Pereslavl museum. --PereslavlFoto 17:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left side leaning. Too much magenta. Too much reflections in the glas boxes. Not a QI IMO --Cccefalon 09:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    The reflections are essential for the museum. Maybe someone else comments to find the way with this subject? --PereslavlFoto 21:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Referring to the questions you left on my talk page: I made some annotations where I found indications of too much magenta in the photo. Probably the WB was not properly done. Of course, the reflections in the glas boxes are hard to avoid. But definetly they are disturbing. Sometimes the circumstances are against an assessment as QI and for me, this is such a situation. I do not contest, that this photo is of encyclopedial value, but it is not a QI for me. --Cccefalon 06:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm afraid Cccefalon is right. But I think it is correctible.--Jebulon 14:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Rösrath_Germany_St-Nikolaus-von-Tolentino-11.jpg[edit]

Rösrath Germany St-Nikolaus-von-Tolentino-11.jpg

  • Nomination St. Antonius at the High Altar of St. Nikolaus von Tolentino in Rösrath, germany --Cccefalon 15:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support The upper composition is a bit unsharp, but still a good photo --A.Savin 17:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the moment. The vertical stretching is a bit too much for me. All the statues look distorded with unnatural proportions. Correctible IMO.--Jebulon 19:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why "for the moment"? I can either choose to get verticals rectilinear or upper part unstretched; that's how untilting operation work. So, what death do you want me to die? :-) --Cccefalon 05:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I said "for the moment" because it was correctible... I've tried something as vertical scale correction, I think it is better. Please revert if you don't agree. And for sure, I don't want you to die. For the moment.Smile--Jebulon 13:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Amazing ... thank you .. want to apply it to the .DNG/.TIF file? there are some losses in the fine details. --Cccefalon 16:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)~
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good now. "for the moment" may be a Gallicism Smile --Archaeodontosaurus 09:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Better said: "for the time being", or "right now". Thank you Archaeo. And I don't want nobody to die. Still. For the time being. Smile I'm at work with the file received--Jebulon 14:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Скульптурная_композиция_«Рыбак»_на_городской_набережной,_Ростов-на-Дону.jpg[edit]

200px

Symbol support vote.svg Support. QI from technical standpoint. The copyvio question is not settled as of yet and there are A LOT of pics that could be deleted by this same reason (and are still here). Jbribeiro1 03:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not QI, from a technical standpoint IMO. This is not sharp enough for a static object.--Jebulon 14:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jebulon. --Lewis Hulbert 07:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Ta_Keo,_Angkor,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_01.JPG[edit]

Ta Keo, Angkor, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomination Ta Keo, Angkor, Cambodia --Poco a poco 18:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    Slightly tilted clockwise maybe? The trees are a bit iffy I think. Mattbuck 21:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Tilted Poco a poco 20:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not that sharp, I'm afraid. And the red tee-shirt is really distracting.--Jebulon 16:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss, the T-shirt problem is gone, and sharpness is IMHO good enough for QI --Poco a poco 20:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Harsh contrast and dust spot (see note). Could be nice too geolocation and links to wiki Symbol support vote.svg Support Betters now, well done --Wilfredor 16:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I added the geodata and removed a dust spot (after a note of Christian Ferrer) Poco a poco 18:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Nasturtiopsis_coronopifolia_1.jpg[edit]

Nasturtiopsis coronopifolia 1.jpg

  • Nomination Nasturtiopsis coronopifolia --Gidip 09:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeVery unsharp. --Mattbuck 21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
For this image size, sharpness is excellent. You can downsample to get a sharp image at full resolution. --Gidip 07:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Downsampled version by wikimedia software https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Nasturtiopsis_coronopifolia_1.jpg/731px-Nasturtiopsis_coronopifolia_1.jpg it is still not very sharp. -- Smial 06:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support The first plan stems are sharp. At f/18 with an APS-C camera I'm not sure what more can be done. I would have cropped a little tighter, especially on the right, but this is a QI to me. --Jastrow 07:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can not understand why there is so extreme shallow DOF. Due to http://eol.org/pages/5159295/details the plant is typially 10 to 25cm high, so this is not really a macro shot. f/18? Even with 250mm f/5.6 or f/8 250mm I get more DOF. -- Smial 06:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support With Jastrow here.--Jebulon 14:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Cccefalon 05:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Anoplotrupes_stercorosus_01_(MK).jpg[edit]

Anoplotrupes stercorosus 01 (MK).jpg

  • Nomination: Anoplotrupes stercorosus by Leviathan1983 --Gidip 05:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This photo was already declined April 4 by me. Nothing changed since then. Original reason was "Unfortunately the DoF is so shallow that only a tiny part of the beetle is sufficiently sharp." --Cccefalon 05:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support The photo is sharp enough. --Gidip 05:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support no reason to rejection, good photo and QI --Ralf Roletschek 07:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info There is an ongoing Discussion about the Renomination of declined photos. --Cccefalon 07:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You forgot to sign your name there Gidip 08:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the hint. Must have been a mistake of the script. --Cccefalon 11:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice pic but not QI. --P e z i 16:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It would be nice to give some reasoning, esp. if you oppose. Gidip 08:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, in addition to the reasons already mentioned by Cccefalon: 4.4MP coming out of a 12MP camera (digital zoom or downsampled?); overexposed areas on back of the beetle; burnt out red channel in the upper right corner. --P e z i 22:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Cccefalon 13:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Grosskirmes Ibbenbueren Achterbahn 01.jpg[edit]

Grosskirmes Ibbenbueren Achterbahn 01.jpg

  • Nomination Roller coaster „Berg und Tal“ at the funfair Großkirmes Ibbenbüren in Ibbenbüren, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --J.-H. Janßen 19:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Wikijunkie 09:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    I like it, but left side is leaning in and it could all do with sharpening.Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Mattbuck 22:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Matt. Fixable, but 3 three weeks after nomination, a reaction of the nominator could be expected. --Cccefalon 05:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 05:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Luebben Paul Gerhardt Gymnasium 10.jpg[edit]

Luebben Paul Gerhardt Gymnasium 10.jpg

  • Nomination Paul-Gerhardt-Gymnasium in Lübben, Brandenburg, Germany --J.-H. Janßen 16:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Wikijunkie 09:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment perspective correction needed. --P e z i 22:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not acceptable for me as QI without perspective correction. --Uoaei1 06:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other --Archaeodontosaurus 15:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A sharpening white line is visible along the roofs, but I think it is acceptable after the perspective correction, which has been done.--Jebulon 14:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The perspective is still not properly done. The building is leaning inwards. --Cccefalon 05:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)~
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 05:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC))