Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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

Nominations[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 11:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

April 27, 2024[edit]

April 26, 2024[edit]

April 25, 2024[edit]

April 24, 2024[edit]

April 23, 2024[edit]

April 22, 2024[edit]

April 21, 2024[edit]

April 20, 2024[edit]

April 19, 2024[edit]

April 18, 2024[edit]

April 17, 2024[edit]

April 16, 2024[edit]

April 14, 2024[edit]

April 13, 2024[edit]

April 12, 2024[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  Oppose and  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".



File:Bloemencorso_Zundert_2023_-_Afwas_1.png[edit]

  • Nomination Float of the 2023 flower parade of Zundert, titled "The dishes" --ReneeWrites 06:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Nice composition, but unfortunately lack of detail. --Alexander-93 07:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    Disagree - appears sufficient detail given the subject photographed!
     Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 09:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Anthocharis_cardamines_male_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Anthocharis cardamines, male, Italy --Syrio 18:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good. --Thi 19:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, but I disagree. This one is just too noisy, hardly anything really in focus and low detail. The level of noise is quite astonishing for ISO 200. I wonder whether this could be upscaled or overprocessed? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Robert Flogaus-Faust: it's been a while since I took this; I may have used the digital zoom, could it be that? --Syrio 12:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Plaza_de_Saint-Michel,_París,_Francia,_2022-10-29,_DD_140.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Plaza de Saint-Michel, París, Francia, 2022-10-29 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 15:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Blown sky, rest looks noisy, not sure this is recoverable, sorry --Mike Peel 21:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
    May I ask for a new assessment? --Poco a poco 12:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Of course, but then this should go to CR instead of being reset to "/Nomination". I set it to "/Discuss". --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Red_Clay,_Jana_(P1100314).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cessna 414 on display at Red Clay Studio near Tamale, Ghana --MB-one 09:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Yes. --PetarM 19:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Wing is clipped in this image and there is lots of room to move around to include all of the plane. You have another image of this plane (already QI) that shows all of the plane. --GRDN711 19:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @GRDN711: Although there is another image of the same aircraft already promoted to QI, this one is showing a different angle. I also don't see which part of the wing is clipped. Could you be more specific about this please? --MB-one 19:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support What appears to be a clipped wing is actually the wing of the other aircraft on the left. The subject aircraft is completely in the picture. The composition is not ideal because of these other planes around, but there was probably no other possibility to show this side of the Cessna. --Plozessor 03:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Gdansk_2023_40.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination National Museum in Gdańsk - Archangel Michael in Memling's Last Judgement --Scotch Mist 09:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, not a QI with that reflexion on the right --Poco a poco 10:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Image The area with the reflection was retained because it highlighted the condemned sinners - should that area have been cropped? --Scotch Mist 11:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment You need to change from a ambiguous file name to one that briefly describes the image. --Tournasol7 05:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The reflection is on the right and in the central part too. --MIGORMCZ (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It might not be possible to take a better picture during a regular visit of that museum, but sorry, the reflections are really disturbing. --Plozessor 03:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --MIGORMCZ (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Gdansk_2023_42.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination National Museum in Gdańsk - Mary Triptych --Scotch Mist 09:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Too blurry, sorry. Also, the file name and description are a bit misleading. --Peulle 09:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Beautiful image though it ist taken with 800 ISO and it is not so sharp as we like it. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With an exposure time of 1/13 it'd have been better to use a tripod. As above, too blurry. --Alexander-93 10:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment You need to change from a ambiguous file name to one that briefly describes the image. --Tournasol7 05:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurry for QI. --MIGORMCZ (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred --Jakubhal 06:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred. Which is not a result of high ISO but of camera movement, should probably have used even higher ISO (or a tripod of course). --Plozessor 03:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --MIGORMCZ (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Église_de_Choëx_-_Tribune_de_l'orgue_et_entrée.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The organ loft and main entrance to Choëx church. --Espandero 20:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 21:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate lighting. The organ is too dark and the entrance is much too bright. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 10:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Spurzem well the organ is made of darker wood and the entrance has a light right on top of it so I don't know what I could have done different while taking this picture. You can see on another file that the organ's wood is dark. I feel like the details on the file we're discussing here are sufficient to prove it's not a lighting issue. I don't feel very comfortable trying to play with lights settings in Lightroom to alter the reel lighting but I could try if I have to. - Espandero 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Light is ok, there are neither pitch black shadows nor blown out highlights. IMO the picture is good. --Plozessor 03:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Martin_church_in_Limayrac_(3).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Martin church in Limayrac, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality --Llez 05:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. It looks like the church is tipping backwards. In addition, the lighting is very unfavorable. Please discuss whether the photo is a quality image or whether a better shot could be imagined. -- Spurzem 09:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Seattle_-_April_13,_2024_-_14.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Grieg Garden, University of Washington --Another Believer 02:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 08:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose PC is needed, and it'snot very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 18:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Oversharpened --Nikride 12:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Flamants_à_Thyna_(Sfax)_edited.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Greater flamingos at Thyna salt plains, Tunisia (by El Golli Mohamed, edited by Aristeas). – Aristeas 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Derivative work of an image that is already QI, I don't understand this nom, to bo honest --Poco a poco 19:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Exactly that’s the point. The original image is a QI in spite of being noticeably underexposed, tilted, and showing CAs. This version improves all these points. To be honest I wonder why the original image has ever been promoted to QI status. I do not want to propose to delist it (seems we do not have rules for delisting or replacing QIs, do we?), but if people search for a QI of that subject they should at least find also this improved version, not only the defective original one. This is why I have nominated the derivative version, and why IMHO this deserves a discussion. --Aristeas 09:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment The source is also a featured picture with ten supporting votes and five opposing votes. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Yes, that’s a different story. The nominator did not offer the edited version as an alternative although several users suggested that and even more voters noted shortcomings of the original picture. Hence the FP status does not mean that the original version is better. Therefore I would suggest that we assess the edited image (the one nominated here) according to the usual QI criteria. If one thinks that it is bad (or even worse than the original one), clearly one should vote with “oppose”. If one thinks both images are equally good, one can vote “oppose” for the reason given by Poco a Poco above (no need to promote a derivative version when the original one is rightly a QI). However if one thinks that this edited image fulfills the criteria of the QI guidelines and is better than the original one, one could vote with “support”. --Aristeas 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I did not create this derivative version in order to get “yet another QI” etc., but just because I wanted to help other people – the photographer did not react to the suggestions made by several people for improving the original image. Now IMHO it would be just correct that people who search for a “good image” (QI etc.) of this subject will not find only the original one, but also the edited version. – Aristeas 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I am fine with a replace (this one becomes QI, the other one revokes it) but not with granting 2 QI stamps to the same picture Poco a poco 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
     Question OK, but how can we make a replace? – Aristeas 16:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This image clearly meets the criteria for QI. We have no rules against nominating derivative work. I don't see why this very good image should not get the QI mark. --Kritzolina 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Poco.--Ermell 08:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The problem is homemade. Photos that have already been given a badge must not be overwritten. FP can have their status revoked, but QI cannot. I could not find a rule that very similar or (improved) derived photos may not have a QI badge. In a pragmatic world, such a revision would have simply been copied over the existing version with the note "If you don't like it as the image author, please reset". I've done this a few times with QI candidates. But, see rule 1: You're not allowed to do that with photos that have already won an award. I don't currently see anything that would prohibit the QI status for both images. --Smial 11:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Kritzolina. --Smial 11:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Kritzolina and Smial --Plozessor 03:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nominating derivative versions of QI's, even if they're slightly improved, is a stance that's incredibly easy to abuse. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial's comment --MIGORMCZ 08:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I found this discussion by coincidence: A few months ago, there was a similar discussion where the consensus was against re-nominating an improved derivative. I admit that the improvements were less than in this image. Just for reference in the context of this discussion. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion, the significant improvement justifies a promotion. I would like to agree with the statements of Aristeas and Smial. --Radomianin 13:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial --Jakubhal 18:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support given the fundamental QI objective of making better quality images available via Commons, the argument of Aristeas appears sound providing appropriate credit is given to the original author which seems to be the case here! --Scotch Mist 09:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --SM:!) (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Christopher_church_in_Ampiac_(5).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Portal of the Saint Christopher church in Ampiac, commune of Druelle Balsac, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 05:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support A bit dark overall but ok --Poco a poco 06:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The "restless" shadows bother me a lot. Please discuss whether the photo is still a quality image. -- Spurzem 17:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't have a problem with those shadows. --Sebring12Hrs 09:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows are distracting. --Tagooty 02:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The shadows are there in reality due to the tree in front of the church, and the picture shows the door as a visitor would see it on a sunny day. IMO it's even capturing that atmosphere. --Plozessor 04:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Plozessor, Your explanation reminds me of the photo I've often mentioned of the black cat in the dark basement with no light. Best regards -- Spurzem 11:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor --Jakubhal 15:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Opposes per Tagooty. --GRDN711 20:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)