Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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


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]] 20:05, 1 September 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.

September 1, 2014[edit]

August 31, 2014[edit]

August 30, 2014[edit]

August 29, 2014[edit]

August 28, 2014[edit]

August 27, 2014[edit]

August 26, 2014[edit]

August 25, 2014[edit]

August 24, 2014[edit]

August 22, 2014[edit]

August 20, 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:Basilika Seckau, Habsburger Mausoleum, Wappen der Wittelsbach auf Kenotaph.jpg[edit]

Basilika Seckau, Habsburger Mausoleum, Wappen der Wittelsbach auf Kenotaph.jpg

  • Nomination Putti on cenotaph holding coat of arms of Wittelsbach, Habsburger mausoleum, Seckau basilica, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 09:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion This one lacks sharpness --Poco a poco 09:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, I can't find any problem with the sharpness ... --Dnalor 01 09:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    I do, compare it with the head of Charles II. If you don't agree go ahead and put it on discussion, no problem with that Poco a poco 10:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)For me there are no problems with the sharpness. --Dnalor 01 10:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness is OK IMO. Yann 11:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sharpness is ok, but noise is too strong, especially in the background (ISO 1600!). Can you try to reduce it? --Uoaei1 16:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC) I'm very sorry, but unfortunately I'm not able to do that by myself ... --Dnalor 01 18:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:White Cistus cultivar.jpg[edit]

White Cistus cultivar.jpg

  • Nomination White Cistus cultivar --Livioandronico2013 16:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose missing identification and focus --A.Savin 18:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I see focus and identification --Livioandronico2013 19:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
      • "White flowers" is not sufficient, taxa name is required for QI, see guidelines. --Kreuzschnabel 05:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done identification and focus. Kreuzschnabel can you check now? thanks. --Livioandronico2013 11:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNo proper identification, and insufficient focus. The "focused" flower is overexposed (details of petals are missing on white parts).--Jebulon 16:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_St-Kunibert-05.jpg[edit]

Cologne Germany St-Kunibert-05.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: Interior of church St. Kunibert --Cccefalon 17:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    There are some reflection spots (see notes). Can you try to get rid of these, and to reduce the brightness of the windows? --Uoaei1 11:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I removed the spots and recovered the westwork windows. Please, Uoaei1, have a look. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done. Maybe the windows are now a bit overdone (too dark) --Uoaei1 16:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Algérie-Roumanie_-_20140604_-_12.jpg[edit]

Algérie-Roumanie - 20140604 - 12.jpg

  • Nomination Algérie-Roumanie - 20140604 - 12 --Pleclown 10:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too tight crop (why?) and very noisy; nice moment nevertheless. --Kadellar 12:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    The crop is tight, because i can't have a wider one :) I was very close to the players and the action was quick, I didn't had time to recenter. See the full image (no crop, no tilt) here Pleclown 20:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. Some noise is inevitable if you want to catch fast movements in sports. Very good shot regarding the circumstances. --Smial 09:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    The wider view is much better imo, more interesting. I can stand quite a lot of noise, I'm used to indoor sports, but I think this one has too much, sorry. --Kadellar 16:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Luminance- and chromatic noise are too much, sorry.--Jebulon 16:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Weil_am_Rhein_-_View_from_Vitra_Slide_Tower2.jpg[edit]

Weil am Rhein - View from Vitra Slide Tower2.jpg

  • Nomination View from Vitra Slide Tower --Taxiarchos228 20:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --XRay 17:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    Many dust spots, perspective issues. --Mattbuck 20:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry. you're right, Mattbuck.--XRay 05:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Skärholmen_August_2014_06.jpg[edit]

Skärholmen August 2014 06.jpg

  • Nomination Skärholmens torg (square). Skärholmen, Stockholm. --ArildV 06:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, composition (cropped tree at botom and too much sky). Noise of the building of the right or dark areas--Lmbuga 11:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry but I think I disagree here, the images is taken from the best possible position above the square (to avoid the trees on the street level, and to give a overview). There is some noise, but not a big problem for QI imo.--ArildV 15:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Ok. It's better "discuss", other users can think. Sorry--Lmbuga 20:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I denoised and sharpened it, revert if you don’t approve of my try. Oppose due to framing though, would have been better to lower the camera (and apply perspective correction subsequently) to get more of the square. --Kreuzschnabel 03:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Fallen_Diplomats_Memorial_Ottawa.jpg[edit]

Fallen Diplomats Memorial Ottawa.jpg

  • Nomination Memorial to the fallen diplomats in Ottawa near Island Park Drive --MB-one 21:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 14:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Disagree, too soft due to f29, it almost looks as out of focus. Don't use so narrow apertures, to avoid diffraction. You don't need to go beyond f11 to have a large depth of field, I myself seldom go beyond f8. It's a pity, because composition and motif are nice. --Kadellar 14:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kadellar, and blown whites. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others.--Jebulon 16:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 16:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Mozhaysky_Bridge_SPB_01.jpg[edit]

Mozhaysky Bridge SPB 01.jpg

  • Nomination Mozhaysky Bridge in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 16:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise at the bridge and distortion on th sides. ----MB-one 01:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Noise is correctable issue, distortions are consequence of using wide-angle lens. --Florstein 16:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer 10:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good images. --ArildV 14:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK to me. --A.Savin 18:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. (Bridge and reflection within the frame might have made an FPC.) --Kreuzschnabel 05:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 16:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:ParroquiaNuestraSeñoraRosario-Vela.jpg[edit]

ParroquiaNuestraSeñoraRosario-Vela.jpg

  • Nomination Front of Nuestra Señora del Rosario church, María Ignacia, Vela, Tandil, Argentina --Ezarate 14:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please, your image needs perspective correction. It's tilted CCW.--XRay ✓ Done Ezarate 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)15:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please have a look to the image and my notice.--XRay 16:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I tried to fix that issue Ezarate 00:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    IMO it's not OK. Please have a look to the door.--XRay 04:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilted. Sky too granular, needs denoising. Luminance of blue needs to be raised. --Cccefalon 08:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I just do more corrections, see now please Ezarate 09:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Very weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. It's much better now. IMO it's leaning in on both sides, but with repsect to the building: QI.--XRay 07:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_MediaPark-02.jpg[edit]

Cologne Germany MediaPark-02.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: Buildings Mediapark 6 and Mediapark 7 --Cccefalon 07:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    what has happend with the area of the posters on the left? very curious pixalisation. --Taxiarchos228 07:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nothing curious - it's the design of the poster. Guggst du hier. --Cccefalon 10:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose strong pixalisation visible (see notes) --Taxiarchos228 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree --Cccefalon 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. With more of 20 megapixels of resolution, the pixelation (if there is pixelation) is minimal and should not be considered in QI IMO.--Lmbuga 11:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There isn't pixelation IMO, it's the kind of the poster or the design of the poster--Lmbuga 11:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Chevrolet_Coupe_Typ_AB_BW_2011-09-03_13-54-37.JPG[edit]

Chevrolet Coupe Typ AB BW 2011-09-03 13-54-37.JPG

  • Nomination Chevrolet National Serie AB Coupé --Berthold Werner 06:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The retouched plate is a no-go for QI. Also the shadows have to be raised. The perspective needs to be fixed. Some slight magenta CA right side. All resolvable. --Cccefalon 10:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    ok. I have removed the ca and corrected the perspective. The blurred license plate is not a "no-go" for QI, there are lots of QIs with blurred license plates and in this case it was addionally wish of the organiser. --Berthold Werner 08:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, it cannot be a QI then. According to QI Guideline "Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive." --Cccefalon 19:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    Not accepted, two reason are already given. --Berthold Werner 10:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don’t think the blurred plate impairs the quality or value of this image too severely though it would have been nicer without that manipulation. Why should a blurred plate be a no-go? There’s clearly no intended deception – or who would think when viewing the image the place was really looking like this? --Kreuzschnabel 07:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I took the liberty to apply the required Retouched template. Still, this retouching is an immediate and dominant eye catcher when you open the file. Even in the thumbnal here, it attracts your attention. For me, it even fails the well-done criteria. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support : lots of pictures have already been promoted with a blurred plate (one example among them : File:Citroën DS 21 27 Quai Anatole France license plate blanked 2012-06-02 cropped.jpg). If rules needs to be changed, I think a discussion is needed too before we change.--JLPC (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @JLPC:, @Cccefalon: Just for information, I blurred the license plate on the above photo, because the car was illegally parked, and I did not want to become part of a possible issue between the police and the car owner by publishing the photo with a visible license plate. For the case above, I also think blurring the plate is reasonable mitigation from the guideline, as it was specifically requested by the organizer. --Slaunger 18:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@Slaunger:: The difference is , that your retouchement is perfectly done. --Cccefalon 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI see your point, and I also agree the removal of the license plate information could have been done more elegantly. Here it is distracting because the blurred area is completely smooth, while the surrounding parts has texture and structure. --Slaunger 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I just checked Images_with_blanked_out_license_plates. The above mentioned photo of mine is actually currently the only QI (well a version with a different crop is QI too) in that category. Of course that may be because many images, with blurred license plates are not even categorized to this category, like, for instance, the nominated picture, which I have now added to that category. --Slaunger 20:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I generally reject those photos. But I do not crosscheck every review of the buddies here. --Cccefalon 20:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Yann 17:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it needs brightening (yes I know, that's rich coming from me). Mattbuck 09:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Yann 17:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Eckhaus_Drei_König.jpg[edit]

Lörrach - Eckhaus Drei König.jpg

  • Nomination Lörrach: corner building "three kings" --Taxiarchos228 20:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overall good quality. Please remove the magenta CA at the lamp post. --Cccefalon 20:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
     Not done and loss of detail in the trees. Mattbuck 22:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    the trees are NOT main object but far in the background, your argument is really absurd --Taxiarchos228 20:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 19:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 16:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Magenta CA on the top of the lamp post.--Jebulon 16:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_KölnKubus-at-Deutzer-Feld-02.jpg[edit]

Cologne Germany KölnKubus-at-Deutzer-Feld-02.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: KölnKubus at Deutzer Feld --Cccefalon 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    There is Moiré in the top fence unidentified user
    ✓ Done moiré removed --Cccefalon 20:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    A bit of posterisation and B/Y CA at the sides. Mattbuck 20:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ uploaded new version --Cccefalon 18:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, but I'm not convinced due to blur. --Mattbuck 18:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Other opinions please. --Cccefalon 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry,I see blur, especially on the left --Livioandronico2013 22:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rather ugly building, but picture good for QI IMO--Jebulon 16:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 10:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)