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]] 03:09, 28 February 2017 (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.


February 28, 2017[edit]

February 27, 2017[edit]

February 26, 2017[edit]

February 25, 2017[edit]

February 24, 2017[edit]

February 23, 2017[edit]

February 22, 2017[edit]

February 21, 2017[edit]

February 20, 2017[edit]

February 19, 2017[edit]

February 18, 2017[edit]

February 17, 2017[edit]

February 16, 2017[edit]

February 15, 2017[edit]

February 14, 2017[edit]

February 13, 2017[edit]

February 10, 2017[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:Boljoon_Church,_Cebu.jpg[edit]

Boljoon Church, Cebu.jpg

  • Nomination This is a recent image of the Boljoon church in January 2017. It reflects the best representation of the church on a good day out of the whole category without tight editing. --Adamdaley 01:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Correction of perspective (verticals) and CAs required --Uoaei1 05:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What is CAs? Adamdaley 05:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment None of the vertical walls are straight. I admit my tripod is slightly off. I've used in-software guidelines to test the vertical lines, and they are not straight, even though the image is slightly off. Anyone willing to "straighten" the image for me? I cannot do it. Adamdaley 06:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment CA means chromatic aberration. With Adobe Lightroom or other SW you can solve both issues. --Uoaei1 07:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm working with the .jpg file. Why does everyone insist I use Adobe Lightroom? If someone wants to pass judgement then why not fix it to help since that person doesn't know how to do it in Adobe Photoshop? Thought helping out each other was the key to Commons? I've clearly stated that I am unable to do such fixing with after taking an image. Adamdaley 10:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The idea is to teach people how to fix images themselves. You see, the volume of images here is so high that a few people couldn't possibly help with the editing; the Community therefore rely on the creators doing most of the work themselves. What I can tell you is that it's easier editing images in .RAW format; then you can run perspective correction and everything much easier.--Peulle 10:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do raw files. Just enough to get contrast done. I only use 3 functions out of the entire program of photoshop. No one can't be bothered to straighten an image for me? Not to worry i use a tripod due to shakey hands. Adamdaley 10:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We can teach you. :) Check out this page if you're using PhotoShop (you can also look it up on youtube for teaching videos); I learned it just last year and it's easier once you got the hang of it. Then you can fix all your own images and it's a lot easier to get them through QI. :) --Peulle 11:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Adam, first you do not move your nomination manually from the nomination space to CR. This is done by a Bot after your photo has been assessed and someone is disagreeing with that decision. Moving thing around like this messes with the archiving system for one thing. If you want to have a lengthy discussion about the photo, as you are prone to, you could do that on the reviewers talk page until you sort things out. Second, I explained to another user a while back how to remove CA using Photoshop or Gimp or similar programs, I will post a copy of that conversation on your talk page. I will also second what Peulle said, that while we do help each other for time to time, we are essentially resposible for fixing our own photos. --W.carter 11:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Someone else have a problem? Someone else want to pay me $5,000 AUD to retake this image again? So it's all image-perfect so it does get passed "Quality Image" passed? I'm an 3 inches away from packing it all in from the negativity you guys dish out. Adamdaley 11:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • We don't want you to retake it, we just want you to fix it. And we are trying to teach you how to do that. :) --W.carter 11:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • What Peulle suggested hasn't worked for me. Guess I'll stick with panorama images. Adamdaley 11:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't take this the wrong way, but you will encounter chromatic aberration in panoramas too. With digital photography, taking a very nice photo is just the first step. To make it a good photo and a QI you also need to be able to do what is known as post-processing of it and that includes some sort of image program. If you don't want to buy one, you can download GIMP for free. And don't worry, most of us knew nothing about all this when we first started here at Commons. QIC can be a real eye-opener and a start into more advanced photography. --W.carter 14:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I cannot fix either the "chromatic aberration" or the "perspective (verticals)" as stated. I am not like those who can be "self taught" with websites and unfortunately, there are no courses here for Adobe Photoshop unlike a few years ago when I did my Introduction to Photography certificate in 2012. So whatever images I take will probably have something wrong with them, so does that discourage me from submitting them to here? Of course it does. I hardly get out of the house already because of my mental illness. So when I do submit an image, that means I've managed to actually get out into the "real world". Adamdaley 23:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I saw on en-wiki that you have worked on history articles. Perhaps you could learn about post-processing photos if you read it in a book? There are a lot of those around. Here is one list for starters. --W.carter 23:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's right. Been over there since 2006. I've got dozens of books in two large plastic containers. Adamdaley 00:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --W.carter 11:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Waymo_self-driving_car_side_view.gk.jpg[edit]

Waymo self-driving car side view.gk.jpg

  • Nomination A Waymo self-driving car on the road in Mountain View, making a left turn. (Side view.) --Grendelkhan 23:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurred --Jacek Halicki 23:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Please reconsider; the object is in motion but relatively sharp, similar to File:Motor cycle stunt2 amk.jpg, which fits the QI guidelines. --Grendelkhan 07:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Comparing a slow-moving autonomobile to a fast-moving motorcycle doesn't work for me.--Peulle 10:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Peulle 10:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Nuévalos,_Zaragoza,_España,_2017-01-07,_DD_02.jpg[edit]

Nuévalos, Zaragoza, España, 2017-01-07, DD 02.jpg

  • Nomination Nuévalos, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 16:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but I saw some strong red/pink CAs on the left, that need to be removed. Also, it would be good to add some sharpness. --Halavar 14:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I wouldn call it "strong" if you keep an eye on the file size. ✓ New version uploaded Poco a poco 17:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Large, good picture with a bit of unsharpness on near the left and right margins. A lot of smaller pictures that are slightly unsharp throughout the entire picture are routinely promoted, and I think everyone can think of plenty examples of that. -- Ikan Kekek 05:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok, good now. QI for me --Halavar 10:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Peulle 10:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Akan MHNT.ETH.2010.25.247.jpg[edit]

Akan MHNT.ETH.2010.25.247.jpg

  • Nomination Akan Gold Weight, Geometric weight. Pattern of Palm veins --Ercé 06:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. It looks like flash and IMO to small DoF. --XRay 08:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Clarity is acceptable to me. Let's discuss. -- Ikan Kekek 11:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan.--Peulle 13:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks oversharpened, and too much of useless white on the top. Sorry. --A.Savin 14:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --W.carter 10:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Credit_River_at_Forks_of_the_Credit_Provincial_Park.jpg[edit]

Credit River at Forks of the Credit Provincial Park.jpg

  • Nomination Credit River at Forks of the Credit Provincial Park, Ontario --СССР 01:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacking sharpness, especially in the left part it is blurred, and some chromatic aberrations are there too --A.Savin 15:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I tend to agree with A.Savin on this. -- Ikan Kekek 05:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 15:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Riomaggiore_da_Via_De_Gasperi1.jpg[edit]

Riomaggiore da Via De Gasperi1.jpg

  • Nomination View of Riomaggiore from Via De Gasperi. --СССР 01:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are chromatic aberrations everywhere in the picture but especially in the edge areas. --A.Savin 15:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The motive looks very pleasant, but the chromatic abberation should be corrected. -- Liberaler Humanist 00:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Correction seems almost impossible.--Famberhorst 16:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I think I can fix the CAs - at a later date. Thanks for the input. --СССР (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Famberhorst 16:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 10:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Broken_ice_on_Holma_Millpond_5.jpg[edit]

Broken ice on Holma Millpond 5.jpg

  • Nomination Broken ice on Holma Millpond, Lysekil, Sweden. --W.carter 21:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition isn't quite there for me, unfortunately. No clear subject as most of the frame is simply a uniform sheet of ice. Dark intrusion of near bank pulls the eye in one direction and blown reflection of the sun pulls it in the other. Sorry. Juliancolton 03:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pic is now cropped to show just the subject which is the light on the ice in a minimalistic way. Is this better? It is polite to give the nominator a chance to correct such a simple thing as a crop. ;) --W.carter 10:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Please know that I didn't mean to be impolite. I considered that a crop might have addressed my concerns, and it was indeed a nice improvement, but I still feel find the composition to not be very compelling. I'm happy to be proven wrong, as it's still very pretty and tranquil as others have noted. Juliancolton 15:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are loads of QIs without compelling compositions. If we had to decline every one of them, QI would be a much smaller category - and this one is way more interesting than quite a lot of other pictures, anyway. If you find this very pretty and tranquil and it's up to QI technical standards, do you really think it's appropriate for you to oppose a promotion? -- Ikan Kekek 05:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The image guidelines define compositional as well as technical standards to be met for QI status. If there are many QIs with poor compositions then perhaps at least some of them shouldn't be QIs at all. It's fine to disagree with my judgement. That's why we have consensual review. Just don't insist that I've been impolite or inappropriate etc etc... Juliancolton 15:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't insist; I asked you a question - perhaps sharply, but with room for a reply such as you gave. In practice, I find that compositional standards aren't very high at QIC, merely what's sufficient to focus on the subject of the photo with decent clarity and without tremendous distraction. Maybe that's worth discussing on the talk page. -- Ikan Kekek 06:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Guys, let's not blow this out of proportions. I should have used a better way of expressing myself at the beginning, perhaps "more polite" or "better" or whatever might have been more appropriate. I don't consider Julian impolite at all and he surely has full rights to his opinion. I read the initial oppose as being fixable by a crop, I didn't realize Julians objection went deeper than I though. My bad. --W.carter 11:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good, interesting photo. -- Ikan Kekek 05:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me pretty picture.--Famberhorst 16:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Subtle shades of a golden winter afternoon. Daniel Case 17:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --A.Savin 16:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Charleville-Mézières_--_2017_--_4803.jpg[edit]

Charleville-Mézières -- 2017 -- 4803.jpg

  • Nomination Mézières, Charleville-Mézières, France --XRay 07:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 19:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Sky washed out. --A.Savin 15:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but bad weather conditions. It isn't washed out, but you're right, it isn't a nice sky. --XRay 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Close call for me; the house seems OK, but the sky gives you problems. The chimney is distorted too, not sure if that can be rescued. I'd recommend reshooting on a day with better weather, and experimenting with distances to avoid the distortion.--Peulle 10:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Conclusion: Not good enough. Thank you for your reviews. --XRay 09:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 10:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Biswas_Ras_Mancha.jpg[edit]

Biswas Ras Mancha.jpg

  • Nomination Ras Mancha near the Biswas Bari of Cossipore. By User:DeepanjanGhosh --Sumitsurai 11:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs some perspective correction. --A.Savin 16:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now -A.Savin 01:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 13:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Mallnitz_Altes_Tauernhaus_01.jpg[edit]

Mallnitz Altes Tauernhaus 01.jpg

  • Nomination Altes Tauernhaus (2,380 metres (7,810 ft)) in the Tauern Valley near Mallnitz, High Tauern National Park, Carinthia --Uoaei1 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but not sharp enough --PtrQs 03:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • New version available, lets discuss --Uoaei1 05:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO sharp enough for good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Moroder 15:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question -- and how do we read the QI-guidelines [2]: 'Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality).' Here it was 17 -> 9,5 MB --PtrQs (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • haahh, it's the damn pixelpeepers! --Moroder 21:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • thank you for this very useful hint. So if everybody's happy with that pic, I won't persist in any standards Shade.png --PtrQs (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I think this is a valid discussion. PtrQs quoted accurately. So since the image guidelines are actually not enforced to the letter, what is the operative standard, and should this guideline be edited accordingly? -- Ikan Kekek 07:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's an issue, yes. I usually use that rule if an image has lower resolution than this, and/or if the quality seems questionable. The typical case is an image that has not been cropped or taken with a zoom lens, but has been shot with a high res camera and has been downsampled to just above the 2MP limit.--Peulle 13:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO these guidelines should not be adapted to generally accepted low standards. I feel that there are more than a few QIs that I would rank near the limit of sharpness. But especially for those, where even a downsizing does not result in an acceptable quality, we should be able to quote this guideline. --PtrQs 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not really understanding this discussion. What I see is that there are sharpness issues in the previous version of this photo at full size, and that there are still some questions about the sharpness of this version at full size. In particular, the roof is a bit questionable to me without "pixel-peeping". If there were no question of downsizing, though, I'd probably just not vote. I will Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, and I'd like anyone to explain why it's fine to downsize this image. -- Ikan Kekek 03:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I miss detail on the grass. --A.Savin 14:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have seen both versions now and I don't see any compelling problems with the first version's size; the resizing seems to be done to make it appear sharper. Sharpening of the original image could work without reducing the size.--Peulle 10:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question @PtrQs, Ikan Kekek, A.Savin, Peulle: Dear opposers, I really do not understand how an image where you can read a text that is about 10 pixels high and about 2 pixels wide (see the hiking signs) could possibly be unsharp or show any lack of detail?! Regards, --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Well, it looks to me like the part of the roof facing us is a bit questionable, and A.Savin mentioned the grass. But I think the main objection is to your having downsampled. -- Ikan Kekek 21:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO, has nothing to do with the number of pixels. I don't know what happened, but the grass is totally unsharp and looks like painted with a brush. Of course both in the first and the latest version, because downsampling does not add fine detail. --A.Savin 05:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 03:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Haus-Nordfassade,_2017,_Oetztaler_Str._23,_München.jpg[edit]

Haus-Nordfassade, 2017, Oetztaler Str. 23, München.jpg

  • Nomination Modern residental house in Munich --Lucasbosch 10:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 13:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. I can´t understand the composition. Too much sky and only a part of the building? --Milseburg 20:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition is certainly strange, with the slanty building and the plane looking as if it's diving headlong into its side, but weird doesn't mean bad quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The crop doesn't fit to the description. --Palauenc05 21:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not? We see part of the facade. -- Ikan Kekek 00:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Milseburg Poco a poco 07:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Poco a poco 07:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)