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]] 18:44, 7 December 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.


December 7, 2016[edit]

December 6, 2016[edit]

December 5, 2016[edit]

December 4, 2016[edit]

December 3, 2016[edit]

December 2, 2016[edit]

December 1, 2016[edit]

November 30, 2016[edit]

November 29, 2016[edit]

November 28, 2016[edit]

November 25, 2016[edit]

November 24, 2016[edit]

November 22, 2016[edit]

November 21, 2016[edit]

November 20, 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:Pabellón_Criollo_Venezolano.jpg[edit]

Pabellón Criollo Venezolano.jpg

  • Nomination Pabellón Criollo Venezolano --The Photographer 10:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy and unfocused, IMO. Also, the white rice blends into the background - may I suggest using coloured background/plate? --Peulle 11:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Noise is gone --The Photographer 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Mostly looks good enough for QI to me, but there are several dark spots that disturb me. What caused them? I do agree with Peulle that using a colored plate would produce a better photo, but I wouldn't hold up promotion on that basis alone. -- Ikan Kekek 13:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I will buy a cheaper chinese plate, what color could work better?. Thanks for the recomendation --The Photographer 13:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
What colors do you figure are your options? I could try to picture them in context. -- Ikan Kekek 13:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not great because it's hard for the eye to distinguish between the light that filtered through the clear plate on the left and the plate itself, but I think that with the latest edit, this is good enough for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 10:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, this less noisy version is better.--Peulle 12:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Peulle 12:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Front view of Milan Stazione Centrale entrance portico.jpg[edit]

Front view of Milan Stazione Centrale entrance portico.jpg

  • Nomination Front portico of Milano Centrale, straight-on --Daniel Case 03:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now: sorry, but please fix the tilt (it's leaning clockwise), and also, there are some chromatic aberrations left at edges. --A.Savin 16:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Cropped it in a little tighter, too. Daniel Case 21:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Daniel Case: Well, I'm really sorry to bother you that much, but when juxtaposing the previous with the current version, I've the impression that the current one is significantly less crisp... But the lines are correct now. --A.Savin 01:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps I could go back and see what I can do; it seems to me that the loss of sharpness you may have seen is sometimes a consequence of correcting CA. But now that it's down here let's see what everyone else thinks. Daniel Case 05:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good quality to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 09:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me. -- Spurzem 23:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 15:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Gemünd, brug over die Urft foto4 2016-09-09 16.14.jpg[edit]

Gemünd, brug over die Urft foto4 2016-09-09 16.14.jpg

  • Nomination Gemünd-NRW, bridge across the Urft --Michielverbeek 08:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Almost OK but the area of the two windows over the bridge is blurry (dirty lens?). Not enough for a QI IMO, sorry. --Basotxerri 08:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think light fall is not perfect, but still good enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 06:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Which two windows are blurry? I'm not really noticing anything that makes this not a QI. Good composition and light, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 07:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Unless it's my glasses, it's there. I've left a note on the pic. By the way, the blurry area is here, too, but less visible: File:Gemünd, die Sankt Nikolaus Kirche Dm75 foto7 2016-09-09 15.58.jpg. Anyway, let's see what others think. --Basotxerri 18:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - It looks to me like the highlights are too bright and the picture could benefit from toning those down. So Michielverbeek, perhaps that's worth considering. However, I still think that it's a QI as is. -- Ikan Kekek 00:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not pinsharp but ok. Alvesgaspar 21:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As a whole okay for me.--Famberhorst 07:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Famberhorst (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Minsk. Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul (2016).jpg[edit]

Minsk. Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul (2016).jpg

  • Nomination Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. Minsk, Belarus --Bestalex 10:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks OK. --Peulle 10:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now: please correct the tilt (church towers are leaning to the left) and chromatic aberrations. --A.Savin 15:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I corrected the tilt slightly. Where are CA? I have removed it, anyway, I tried do that. --Bestalex 13:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks, it's somewhat OK to go now. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --A.Savin 17:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - This one really does need to be perspective-corrected. The combination of the fence going up and the towers going down makes no sense to me from any standpoint. -- Ikan Kekek 08:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The perspective doesn't bother that much but the sky is overexposed and the upper part of the buildibg is too soft. -- Alvesgaspar 23:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --A.Savin 15:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:African music singer in São Paulo downtown, Brazil.jpg[edit]

African music singer in São Paulo downtown, Brazil.jpg

  • Nomination Afrincan music singer --The Photographer 11:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 11:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Lots of retouching artifacts at the background (left) --Smial 12:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done noise reduction in background --The Photographer 18:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • There are little white specks on her arms and shirt. Can you do anything about those? I see a few of them on the woman in the pink and white dress, too. -- Ikan Kekek 04:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --The Photographer 11:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The title should be "African", not "Afrincan", surely?--Peulle 11:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks done --The Photographer 12:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The Photographer, I still see little white spots in the hair of the woman in the pink and white dress. When you correct those, I plan to support this picture. -- Ikan Kekek 21:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not done, and I'm now noticing some kind of terrible smudge on the left side that I don't remember seeing before. Too bad; this is a nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek 10:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • The problem is overprocessing. We see some retouching in the background, and we see very strong noise reduction, then combined with strong sharpening. This makes artifacts everywhere. I would suggest to start from scratch with the raw file and use less invasive retouching methods. In street photography with moving people it can be necessary to use rather high ISO settings to get a sharp image and then some amount of noise is acceptable. Btw: I really like the composition and the situation. Great snapshot! --Smial 23:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is for me a "lived" picture and the quality is in my opinion good enough fo QI. --Rabax63 10:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy and the background is too busy. But I like the subject. Alvesgaspar 23:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Weak support, IMO the noise is acceptable. --Palauenc05 22:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek 10:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Paraiso_metro_Station,_São_Paulo,_Brazil.jpg[edit]

Paraiso metro Station, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg

  • Nomination Drunken man. --The Photographer 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @The Photographer: You state that 'All identifiable persons shown specifically consented to publication of this photograph or video under a free license'. Is this true? Charlesjsharp 14:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Noisy, sorry. --Moroder 14:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • lets discuss, to me it's Symbol support vote.svg Support, it must be noisy because it's dark there. Flash or tripod aren't a opinion. --Ralf Roletschek 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Looks OK to me. I'm surprised those two consented to the photograph, but I assume good faith. -- Ikan Kekek 05:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I cannot imagine this two persons gave you permission, but that's not my business. ISO2000 makes the photo very noisy but you a high ISO-value was absolutely necessary. However I think it is a brilliant composition, so I Symbol support vote.svg Support this photo --Michielverbeek 06:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can only agree with Michielverbeek regarding this composition. Perhaps you could tell us a little about how you do when you take these photos. Do you take the pic first and then go up to the people and ask if it was ok and if you can publish the photo or do you ask for permission first? W.carter 15:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm also interested on the consent achieved here. Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Brazil suggests you need consent prior to taking this photo, and I would doubt very much that the man is in a position to give satisfactory consent. In other countries, consent might not be required but one would have to be careful not to describe the man as drunk. In think The Photographer, you should be careful here, and if you don't have some written evidence of consent, then you are putting yourself at unnecessary legal risk for a hobby photo. -- Colin 15:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The woman asked me to take this picture, however, @Colin: is right and IMHO I need both consent. Btw, this place is a public place I need ask for the consent for each people in the scene ?. For example, for someone in this case the main subject here is the Station (not for me).
Although not mentioned in the law, it is generally recognized both by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied or not needed for pictures of
people who are present in a public space or participating in a public event (unless the depicted person is the main focus of the picture),

--The Photographer 12:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a little confusing what you mean but I would say the main subject here is the people (the filename isn't relevant). -- Colin 14:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Noisy, sorry. As Moroder. Left vertical lines are tilted to right --Lmbuga 17:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks overprocessed to me. Looking at the man's face, it seems like it has been denoised too much. About the permission thing: yes, it's the drunk guy's permission you need since he's the one in the awkward and embarrasing position.--Peulle 18:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. --Palauenc05 08:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --W.carter 13:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Eskimo_Callboy_–_Elbriot_2015_10.jpg[edit]

Eskimo Callboy – Elbriot 2015 10.jpg

  • Nomination Eskimo Callboy beim Elbriot 2015. By User:Huhu Uet --Achim Raschka 05:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {{Comment}} and {{o}} It is completely inappropriate to threaten potential users with immediate legal action. Just because it is a community-sponsored project, you should use CC-BY-SA-4.0 here. Thanks for your kind understanding, Wikipedia should be and remain as a friendly place! --Hubertl 10:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Support now, thanks for changing the Template, Achim Raschka and Huhu Uet! --Hubertl 15:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Es ist unangebracht, hier Lizenzpolitik zu betreiben --Ralf Roletschek 10:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hand and guitar are very unsharp at full size, hand is cut off. Not a QI in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 10:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan Kekek.--Peulle 13:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good sharpness and composition. Situation well captured. Perhaps very slight overexposure. -- Smial 15:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great concert shot. Yann 00:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good portrait.--Ermell 21:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm thinking, but see notes: Unacceptable spot or stain (see left area of the picture). Dust spot. Poor dof, CAs, chromatic noise, overexpossed areas. Sorry: Why is it QI?: Sharpness of a litle area?, hard to take?, size? But good or very good composition--Lmbuga 17:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too many technical flaws. The worst are probably the overexposed face and the cropped hand. Alvesgaspar 23:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 23:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose chromatic aberration and background noise. It could be fixed --The Photographer 13:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 15:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)