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]] 07:43, 30 August 2016 (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.


August 30, 2016[edit]

August 29, 2016[edit]

August 28, 2016[edit]

August 27, 2016[edit]

August 26, 2016[edit]

August 25, 2016[edit]

August 24, 2016[edit]

August 23, 2016[edit]

August 22, 2016[edit]

August 21, 2016[edit]

August 19, 2016[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:Sternberg-Bildhäuschen-8145360-HDR.jpg[edit]

Sternberg-Bildhäuschen-8145360-HDR.jpg

  • Nomination Wayside shrine in Sternberg --Ermell 14:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {{o}} I'm sorry, IMO this is not enough for QI. The image has some noise and some of the flowers are motion blurred. --Basotxerri 18:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
      You are right. Upload of the wrong file by mistake. Please have a look again.--Ermell 21:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm going to put this in CR because I've no idea what to do in these cases. I think CR will be the most correct... Anyway, it's OK for me now. --Basotxerri 17:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 07:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:2016-07-27_Seagull_in_Zandvoort_aan_Zee_(02)_(freddy2001).jpg[edit]

2016-07-27 Seagull in Zandvoort aan Zee (02) (freddy2001).jpg

  • Nomination A seagull (Larus argentatus) in the dunes of Zandvoort aan Zee. --Freddy2001 20:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ooops, change to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per below. I didn't realize that the versions were identical, thanks for pointing that out. W.carter 20:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think it is sharp enough. Charlesjsharp 22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Please change to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I didn't check that photo is already a Q1one --Michielverbeek 05:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat low DOF, but good enough. Nice, soft lighting so there are no hard shadows. -- Smial 08:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This photo is an alternative version of File:2016-07-27 Seagull in Zandvoort aan Zee (freddy2001).jpg, which is already QI. --A.Savin 06:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as A.Savin. It´s a identical copy, just a different processing. --Hubertl 06:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. Jkadavoor 06:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 07:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-007.jpg[edit]

Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-007.jpg

  • Nomination Archibasis oscillans tandem --Jkadavoor 03:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I don't think conditions made it is possible to get a QI. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment no signature, therefore striked. --Hubertl 05:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose insufficient quality Charlesjsharp 07:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a bit soft but ok --Christian Ferrer 18:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Why "insufficient quality"? Where's the problem? OK for QI. --A.Savin 06:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 07:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-004.jpg[edit]

Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-004.jpg

  • Nomination Archibasis oscillans mating --Jkadavoor 03:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I don't think conditions made it is possible to get a QI, even using flash. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment no signature, therefore striked. --Hubertl 05:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose insufficient quality. Charlesjsharp 07:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me --Christian Ferrer 18:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 07:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-008.jpg[edit]

Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-008.jpg

  • Nomination Archibasis oscillans ovipositing --Jkadavoor 03:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I don't think conditions made it is possible to get a QI, even using flash. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment no signature, therefore striked. --Hubertl 05:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose insufficient quality. Charlesjsharp 07:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sufficient quality. --A.Savin 06:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 07:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Orthetrum sabina 09229.jpg[edit]

Orthetrum sabina 09229.jpg

  • Nomination Orthetrum sabina --Vengolis 02:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jkadavoor 02:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeAbdomen not in focus and quite dark. Charlesjsharp 22:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me QI --Rjcastillo 17:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 18:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Lestes elatus 1442.jpg[edit]

Lestes elatus 1442.jpg

  • Nomination Lestes elatus --Vengolis 02:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not at all sharp. Charlesjsharp 22:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough. Jkadavoor 05:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 07:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Euphaea dispar - Davidraju IMG 5408.jpg[edit]

Euphaea dispar - Davidraju IMG 5408.jpg

  • Nomination Euphaea dispar by Davidvraju --Jkadavoor 03:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 04:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNot sure why you are nominating this user's images Jee. They don't appear QI to me. Charlesjsharp 23:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one looks fine to me Poco a poco 09:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image. QI. --Rjcastillo 17:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 18:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 19:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Davidraju Calicnemia miniata (Selys,1886) (1).jpg[edit]

Davidraju Calicnemia miniata (Selys,1886) (1).jpg

  • Nomination Calicnemia miniata by Davidvraju --Jkadavoor 03:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality--Lmbuga 19:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not for me. blurred. Charlesjsharp 23:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Ok, this one is not as good as the other one (DoF problem / sensor not parallel to the dragonfly) Poco a poco 09:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Eyes are sharp enough for me but the useless left side and the bottom should be cropped out.--Ermell 19:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Cropped; thanks for the suggestion. Jkadavoor 03:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose I'm inclined to agree with Poco a poco here; the thorax and eyes are fine but the DoF is just too shallow so large parts of the abdomen are out of focus. Pity, because it's otherwise a nice image. --Peulle 07:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Insecto polinizando.jpg[edit]

Insecto polinizando.jpg

  • Nomination Insect in flowers pollinating -- Ivan2010 (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 13:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, wich insect?, wich flowers? Can you determine something for the photo to be helpful? Not QI for me without description, sorry--Lmbuga 20:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 06:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Vreden,_Zwillbrocker_Venn_--_2016_--_4122.jpg[edit]

Vreden, Zwillbrocker Venn -- 2016 -- 4122.jpg

  • Nomination Nature reserve “Zwillbrocker Venn” (BOR-008), Vreden, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Jkadavoor 03:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think this is QI yet; half the sky is overexposed. --СССР 00:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Is this a comment or an oppose? --XRay 05:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment When it´s here, it was an oppose, XRay. Can you check it again please, СССР? --Hubertl 06:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've checked the histogram. It's OK. But I've just uploaded an image with (minor) improvements in the sky. --XRay 05:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Big parts of the sky still without any detail. Schade, das Licht war für die Landschaft selbst eigentlich sehr nett. --Smial 08:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO, regarding the faults to the complete composition, it is acceptable for QI. This should be the moment for using a grey filter with an hard edge. --Hubertl 09:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for QI. --A.Savin 06:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 09:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)