Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] 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]] 10:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 30, 2009

[edit] November 29, 2009

[edit] November 28, 2009

[edit] November 27, 2009

[edit] November 26, 2009

[edit] November 25, 2009

[edit] November 24, 2009

[edit] November 23, 2009

[edit] November 22, 2009

[edit] November 20, 2009

[edit] November 19, 2009

[edit] November 17, 2009

[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. Or 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 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".

[edit] Consensual Review

[edit] File:Stamps with reproductions of the paintings by Ivan Aivazovsky.jpg

Stamps with reproductions of the paintings by Ivan Aivazovsky.jpg

  • Nomination Stamps with reproductions of the paintings by Ivan Aivazovsky --Mbz1 21:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, unsharp, bad reflections and (I think) unsure composition. --Eusebius 22:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    Maybe reflection, but unsharp? It sharp enough IMO.--Mbz1 23:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    I don't think so, but reflection is the primary motivation for my opposition anyway. --Eusebius 23:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose fine deatails, but the reflections and some CA kills it imo, sorry --Mbdortmund 16:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: I uploaded a new version over an old one.--Mbz1 18:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 16:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Jaguar XF SV8 front.jpg

Jaguar XF SV8 front.jpg

  • Nomination Jaguar XF SV8. -- S 400 HYBRID 14:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very well done (a second time) -- 320td 17:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Front too noisy, very badly processed over the roof. --Eusebius 22:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support too noisy? By me it's not too noisy!? -- S 400 HYBRID 14:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    As the creator and nominator of the picture, you may not vote. Yes, the flanks and front of the car are noisy, and I think it is a bit too much. But this thing over the roof is what mainly prevents your file from being promoted. --Eusebius 15:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Something on the roof. --Makele-90 00:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Makele-90 (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Boojum Tree.jpg

Boojum Tree.jpg

  • Nomination Boojum tree (Fouquieria columnaris) --Bgag 15:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. With a slight regret for the small file size. --Cayambe 12:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Main subject not so sharp, signal processing issues in the sky, not corrected by the downsampling. --Eusebius 22:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Mbdortmund 16:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:TexasIndianPaintbrush-0820.jpg

TexasIndianPaintbrush-0820.jpg

  • Nomination Texas Indian Paintbrush (Castilleja indivisa) flower. --Loadmaster 23:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion should imo be cropped on the left side and on the top --Mbdortmund 12:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Done. --Loadmaster 23:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)OK --Mbdortmund 20:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, overexposed red channel, it is an issue for a red flower. --Eusebius 22:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Video_projector_lamp.jpg

Video projector lamp.jpg

  • Nomination UHE lamp for a digital video projector --Mr.checker 15:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beleuchtung ist gut aber die Schärfentiefe ist zu gering. --Berthold Werner 16:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ich finde, die Schärfe liegt genau richtig und lenkt den Blick aufs Wesentliche, ganz ausgezeichnete Sachaufnahme, die mir wirklich gut gefällt. -- Smial 22:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice and very useful photo, but I have to agree with Berthold about the DOF, which is a pity. -- H005 23:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Mbdortmund 18:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nová radnice (New townhall), Náchod 04.JPG

Nová radnice (New townhall), Náchod 04.JPG

  • Nomination Tower of New Townhall, Náchod --Kozuch 10:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion a little tilt to the right --Pudelek 16:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Extra 300L Góraszka 2008.JPG

Extra 300L Góraszka 2008.JPG

  • Nomination An Extra 300 with Robert Kowalik holding the stick. Photo by myself. --Airwolf 23:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion There are at least five visible dust spots (marked on the image page) and the main subject is far from sharp. Like the composition and angle though - Peripitus 03:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    Huh, there's got to be something wrong with my monitor, I can barealy see those spots. But I'll try to get rid of them, thanks. Airwolf 06:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment After correction i will support this photo --George Chernilevsky 07:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pano rive droite Ubayette.jpg

Pano rive droite Ubayette.jpg

  • Nomination mountains north of Ubayette Valley --Berrucomons 17:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Overprocessed? Sky too dark, most other parts blurred from noise reduction. -- Smial 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sky looks natural to me. Plenty of detail available too. Very scenic. However... there are dust spots in the sky, so I can't support yet, can these be fixed? --99of9 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Airbus 320-200 Wizz Air.JPG

Airbus 320-200 Wizz Air.JPG

  • Nomination WizzAir's Airbus A320. Picture re-nominated, previously declined due to a licencing misunderstanding, photo by myself.--Airwolf 19:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion Isn't it slightly tilted to the right? --Tupungato 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I can see why you're asking, but I don't think so. Look at the wheels, the nose gear just has to be above the main undercarriage. Airwolf 23:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Cayambe 19:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps have a look at the building, perhaps it is a question of perspective correction --Mbdortmund 05:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)