Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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

Contents

Nominations [edit]

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 11:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC). Thank you.


May 18, 2013 [edit]

May 17, 2013 [edit]

May 16, 2013 [edit]

May 15, 2013 [edit]

May 14, 2013 [edit]

May 13, 2013 [edit]

May 12, 2013 [edit]

May 11, 2013 [edit]

May 10, 2013 [edit]

May 9, 2013 [edit]

May 7, 2013 [edit]

May 6, 2013 [edit]

May 5, 2013 [edit]

May 1, 2013 [edit]

April 29, 2013 [edit]

Consensual review [edit]

Rules [edit]

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 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".

Consensual Review [edit]

File:Asarum splendens.JPG [edit]

Asarum splendens.JPG

  • Nomination Asarum splendens. Mottled leaf for in (semi) shade.--
    Famberhorst 05:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Moonik 07:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    Nothing real crisp. Plenty artefacts. Movement unsharpness? Biopics 07:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
    Photo was taken with tripod--Famberhorst 05:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Cigogne_et_deux_poussins,_Tunisie_mai_2013.jpg [edit]

Cigogne et deux poussins, Tunisie mai 2013.jpg

  • Nomination Ciconia ciconia (nests) in Tunisia --Dyolf77 15:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, chromatic aberrations (see note), owerexposed areas, too tight at right and a bit blurry IMO--Lmbuga 17:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI tried to fix CA, the cropping and sharpness. Anyway thanks for reviewing! --Dyolf77 18:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    Better, but I'm not sure if it may be QI--Lmbuga 19:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Brilon,_Keffelker_Kapelle,_Barockaltar.JPG [edit]

Brilon, Keffelker Kapelle, Barockaltar.JPG

  • Nomination Keffelker Kapelle, Barockaltar, Brilon, Germany --Malchen53 08:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Ok --Poco a poco 13:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSry to disagree but the image is not crisp, has low contrast and suffers from harsh flashlight shadows --Manuela61 15:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Maria_Geisenheim.jpg [edit]

Maria Geisenheim.jpg

  • Nomination Virgin Mary on a house corner near the Dome in Geisenheim, Germany --Kreuzschnabel 19:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --Rjcastillo 20:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSry to disagree again but the subject is very small given the size of the entire image (6MP), and the background is very busy --Manuela61 15:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Background busy? Do you suggest to tear the sculpture off, place it before a nicer background, take the shot, then put it back on the house? Sorry, I really don’t understand that point. I find it much more interesting to show such a thing within its surrounding than isolated from it. --Kreuzschnabel 02:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I suggest a longer focal length or better image resolution+crop --Manuela61 06:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO this photo is very good esepcially regarding the level of detail. I think it is a good idea to show the sculpture in its original context. The framing with the two windows is also convincing. --Tuxyso 08:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Tuxyso -- Arcalino 08:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:ESC2013_-_Ireland_-_Dancers_2.jpg [edit]

ESC2013 - Ireland - Dancers 2.jpg

  • Nomination Dancers for Ireland's Eurovision song 2013: Ryan Dolan - Only Love Survives. Photo by Albin Olsson--ArildV 10:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too blurry for me, not so sharp as it could be. 2.8 is great but focus must be very precise due to the very shallow dof. --Kadellar 22:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Can I oppose on grounds that it's Eurovision? Nothing that comes out of Eurovision could be quality. Mattbuck 10:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


File:Village_du_Barroux_3.jpg [edit]

Village du Barroux 3.jpg

  • Nomination Village of Le Barroux, Vaucluse, and Mont Ventoux --Marianne Casamance 08:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Tilted, CA, blurry,low cost camera? --Moroder 11:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    :what is the relationship with the cost of the camera? I use rhe same one for "Le_Barroux_-_Fontaine_3.jpg" --Marianne Casamance 11:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thats probably de reason for CA and blur. The tilt can be corrected. It's a pity because the composition, and lights are good --Moroder 12:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The camera is the Kodak Z950, and the IQ is not sufficient, sry, --Manuela61 16:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Wasserturm Biebrich.jpg [edit]

Wasserturm Biebrich.jpg

  • Nomination Water tower Wiesbaden-Biebrich, Germany --Arcalino 22:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Tilted? --Ikar.us 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    it is not tilted, the tower narrows to the top, the mast of the street lamp is upright --Arcalino 14:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    The left edge has 4° inclination, the right 3°. The Blitzableiter in the center 0,5°. This is enough deviation to be visible. The lamp post isn't a better vertical reference than the tower, because of reality, and perspective correction. --Ikar.us 17:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I am convinced! Rotated the tower. Better now?--Arcalino 09:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Looks good. Can't examine details here, setting back to nomination. --Ikar.us 12:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    I´d like further opinions and setting to discuss -- Arcalino 07:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Bruegge View from Rozenhoedkaai.jpg [edit]

Bruegge View from Rozenhoedkaai.jpg

  • Nomination Bruegge View from Rozenhoedkaai, FP but not a QI --Arcalino 11:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too soft and in need of perspective correction (reflections do not match). Biopics 11:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    its ok for QI. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 11:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportI see no reason for any perspective correction. This could damage more than it would improve. Maybe a bit soft but QI.--Hic et nunc 14:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. --Christian Ferrer 04:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dirtsc 18:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    GA candidate.svg Weak support Great shot but a bit blurry. Don’t see any noticeable CA. --Kreuzschnabel 02:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:13-04-21-dagebuell-by-RalfR-028.jpg [edit]

13-04-21-dagebuell-by-RalfR-028.jpg

  • Nomination Dagebüll, Germany, Ferry "Schleswig-Holstein" --Ralf Roletschek 10:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Malchen53 08:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeToo soft (e.g. lettering on the ferry). Biopics 18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support There is absolutely no problem with the sharpness. Overall sharpness is very good (especially with regard to the high res) --Tuxyso 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is definitely a problem with sharpness here. You may want to check your monitor. Biopics 07:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI fo me --Moroder 08:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for mee too --Hic et nunc 10:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI fo me too --Christian Ferrer 18:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:13-04-13-st-poelten-landhausviertel-505.jpg [edit]

13-04-13-st-poelten-landhausviertel-505.jpg

  • Nomination St. Pölten, Austria, Landhausviertel --Ralf Roletschek 15:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment remove dust spot. See note. --Rjcastillo 19:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)✓OK corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 17:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rjcastillo 18:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNeeds perspective adjustment. Biopics 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see a real possibility to adjust perspective distorsion without corrupting the rest. For me QI.--Hic et nunc 14:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Hic et nunc -- Arcalino 08:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IQ is o.k. for me --Manuela61 15:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Drayton Park railway station MMB 11.jpg [edit]

Drayton Park railway station MMB 11.jpg

  • Nomination 3rd rail electrification at Drayton Park railway station. Mattbuck 22:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too much sharpened? The track looks like a saw. --Steindy 20:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    I understand what you mean, but I don't see it in that image. Mattbuck 19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    You may want to wait a bit longer till the image has fully loaded. I can't see any jagging here. Biopics 07:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Bristol MMB «P0 Cabot Circus.jpg [edit]

Bristol MMB «P0 Cabot Circus.jpg

  • Nomination Cabot Circus, Bristol. Mattbuck 22:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Missing sharpness. --Steindy 20:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    I should probably have used a wider aperture, the focus is correct on the umbrella which is perfectly sharp. Mattbuck 19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Ovella._Galiza.jpg [edit]

Ovella. Galiza.jpg

  • Nomination White sheep (ovis aries aries), Oroso --Lmbuga 11:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Species needed, sorry. --Kadellar 19:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I thought that all the sheeps was Ovis aries, but this sheep is a domestic one and it's ovis aries aries--Lmbuga 23:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
      • OK now, thanks for the research. --Kadellar 19:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rjcastillo 14:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IQ is o.k. --Manuela61 15:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sortie_Soupapes_dégrippées_07-04-2013_-_Peugeot_203_-_clignotant.jpg [edit]

Sortie Soupapes dégrippées 07-04-2013 - Peugeot 203 - clignotant.jpg

  • Nomination Sortie Soupapes dégrippées 07-04-2013 - Peugeot 203 --Pleclown 11:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Missing proper description/categorization. Biopics 13:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC) This isn`t a reason for a contra. Good Picture --> Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 13:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes it is:Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Image_page_requirements. Biopics 23:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    Have you seen that the description have been updatged since your first vote ? Pleclown 12:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC) and the title of the picture is enouth description. --Ralf Roletschek 13:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Grondin 12:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sortie_Soupapes_dégrippées_07-04-2013_-_Peugeot_203_-_feux_arrières_et_pot_d'échappement.jpg [edit]

Sortie Soupapes dégrippées 07-04-2013 - Peugeot 203 - feux arrières et pot d'échappement.jpg

  • Nomination Sortie Soupapes dégrippées 07-04-2013 - Peugeot 203 --Pleclown 11:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Missing proper description/categorization. Biopics 13:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC) This isn`t a reason for a contra. Good Picture --> Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 13:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes it is:Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Image_page_requirements. Biopics 23:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    Have you seen that the description have been updated since your first vote ? Pleclown 12:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Grondin 12:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Bristol MMB B7 SS Great Britain.jpg [edit]

Bristol MMB B7 SS Great Britain.jpg

  • Nomination The SS Great Britain. Mattbuck 01:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Picture is not sharp, the title is misleading --Manuela 10:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    In what way is the title misleading? Mattbuck 11:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    title does not matter, for me its QI Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 14:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me --Rjcastillo 18:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness is not breathtaking, but ok -- Smial 03:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Azure Window 2009.JPG [edit]

Azure Window 2009.JPG

  • Nomination The Azure Window in the west of Gozo island. -- Felix Koenig 17:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very nice. -- Christian Ferrer 17:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown highlights and sharpening haloes. Biopics 20:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Pour. -- Christian Ferrer 04:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support 1/2 f-stop darker would be better. -- Smial 03:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Please don't use these templates, it is confusing for the bot. (corrected)--Jebulon 10:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Grondin 12:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Franzensburg_Schlosspark_Laxenburg.jpg [edit]

Franzensburg Schlosspark Laxenburg.jpg

  • Nomination The Franzensburg castle in Laxenburg, Lower Austria. -- Hendric Stattmann 13:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion WOW! Good quality. --Steinsplitter 14:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It needs a slight perspective correction. There's minor CA too. --Kadellar 15:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Cloud in the center overexposed. Needs perspective corrections. See notes.--Grondin 14:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK thank you for the proposed corrections. I will work on this, please allow a little time, as I am quite busy in my job right now. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now corrected perspective, tried to fix the remaining CA (as good as I could, I know it's not 100% perfect). The overexposed cloud was not possible to fix, it's blown out. IMHO a cloud has the right to be white... :-) -- Hendric Stattmann 08:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the rework. Perspective is now ok, CA is better but not so much. I don't oppose to QI but I don't support. --Kadellar 22:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with the cloud, but I'd retouch them (retouching has been done since the invention of photography) and noone can go there to check it ;-) --Moroder 09:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --High Contrast 14:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:13-04-21-dagebuell-by-RalfR-062.jpg [edit]

13-04-21-dagebuell-by-RalfR-062.jpg

  • Nomination port of dagebüll, Germany --Ralf Roletschek 12:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is frowned upon.(see guidelines). Biopics 12:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    No need to withdraw. Just some advice to spread you next nomination batch a bit more... Biopics 15:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    QI --Taxiarchos228 21:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, but file description unsufficient. -- Smial 02:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Arcalino 19:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Stoke-on-Trent railway station MMB 18 221139.jpg [edit]

Stoke-on-Trent railway station MMB 18 221139.jpg

  • Nomination 221139 at Stoke-on-Trent. Mattbuck 10:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lacking sharpness; magenta CA --A.Savin 12:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    It doesn't appear to be unsharp to me. I can fix the CA if you give me a week or so - moving house so everything's a bit hectic. Mattbuck 10:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    My help is snoring in bed, so here you go. CA removed, sharpened. Mattbuck 22:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThere is a clearly visible scratches on the windshield, and the wiper. --Steindy 18:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    Scratches? What do you mean? Mattbuck 19:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    OK, so there's a scratch on the windscreen... what do you expect me to do about it? Reality is at fault, not the photo. Mattbuck 19:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    Is he seeing the jalousie holder? But it's not on the wiper. Or the shadow of the powerline? That's on the wiper of course. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ikar.us 18:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThe thing marked as a "scratch" is clearly a part of the train (its partly covered by the wiper). --Dirtsc 18:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The "scratch" is a duct for the inner shade (there’s another one on the other side). Good quality. --Kreuzschnabel 09:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ikar.us 18:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Battersea Park railway station MMB 06 377145.jpg [edit]

Battersea Park railway station MMB 06 377145.jpg

  • Nomination 377145 at Battersea Park. Mattbuck 01:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Picture is not sharp --Manuela 10:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    The subject is in focus. Mattbuck 11:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO the dark areas are too much dark, (maybe too much contrast, I don't know), otherwise I support --Christian Ferrer 13:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blurry. --High Contrast 00:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe whole picture lacks sharpness probably due to shaking, there are CAs eg at the edges of the handbag --Manuela61 06:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Covent Garden tube station MMB 01 1973-Stock.jpg [edit]

Covent Garden tube station MMB 01 1973-Stock.jpg

  • Nomination Covent Garden tube station. Mattbuck 01:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion Picture is not sharp --Manuela 10:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    You're unlikely to get a better photo given the conditions. Mattbuck 11:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportTaking into account the prevailing light conditions a very good picture. --Steindy 18:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeUse a tripod or a camera with better ISO capabilities, the image is very noisy too --Manuela61 06:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    You're not allowed tripods on tube platforms really - too small a space, too in the way. Mattbuck 22:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)