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]] 09:06, 1 October 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.


October 1, 2016[edit]

September 30, 2016[edit]

September 29, 2016[edit]

September 28, 2016[edit]

September 27, 2016[edit]

September 26, 2016[edit]

September 25, 2016[edit]

September 24, 2016[edit]

September 23, 2016[edit]

September 22, 2016[edit]

September 21, 2016[edit]

September 20, 2016[edit]

September 19, 2016[edit]

September 18, 2016[edit]

September 17, 2016[edit]

September 14, 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:Kühnring Kellergasse 1.jpg[edit]

Kühnring Kellergasse 1.jpg

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse „Reinprechtspöllarer Straße“ in Kühnring, Gemeinde Burgschleinitz-Kühnring, Niederösterreich. --Manfred Kuzel 15:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Very weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. f/29 is really too much. It's a bit unsharp and the white stones are looking overexposed. --XRay 16:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with XRays critique and feel the issues are too much to overlook, especially since they should be possible to fix.--Peulle 17:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Aperture is too high, undefined color space. --Jacek Halicki 21:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Provisional Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Seems fixable. -- Ikan Kekek 07:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment das ist korrigierbar, wenn die RAW vorliegt. ausgefressene Lichter können verbessert werden. --Ralf Roleček 20:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Amelsdorf Kellergasse 4.jpg[edit]

Amelsdorf Kellergasse 4.jpg

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse in Amelsdorf, Gemeinde Burgschleinitz-Kühnring, Niederösterreich. --Manfred Kuzel 15:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 15:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A bit unsharp and too much dust spots. --XRay 16:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Aperture is too high, undefined color space --Jacek Halicki 21:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Avond valt over de Tjongerdellen. Locatie, het Katlijker Schar (Ketliker Skar). Uitkijktoren Tjongertoer 02.jpg[edit]

Avond valt over de Tjongerdellen. Locatie, het Katlijker Schar (Ketliker Skar). Uitkijktoren Tjongertoer 02.jpg

  • Nomination Night falls over the Tjongerdellen. Location, Het Katlijker Schar Uitkijktoren Tjongertoer. --Famberhorst 15:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks like painting... The image is not sharp enoug. Sorry, but this is not a QI. --Halavar 16:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO, beautiful photo but please use a standard. Also f-value 4 would have been much better and a much shorter exposure time would have given enough light for this composition. --Michielverbeek 06:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes/No/Comment, Michielverbeek? --Hubertl 05:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Sorry, a No --Michielverbeek 06:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Note: The picture was taken with a tripod. I always use a tripod! We stood on a watchtower and the horizon was far away. Personally, I think the picture pretty sharp, but my (old) eyes are not too good anymore.--Famberhorst 11:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Very atmospheric and sharp enough. QI for me -- Spurzem 18:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Spurzem. Very nice picture. -- Ikan Kekek 07:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sehr schön. --Ralf Roletschek 20:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me too. --Alchemist-hp 07:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Alchemist-hp 07:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Catedral_Francesa,_Berlín,_Alemania,_2016-04-22,_DD_16-18_HDR.jpg[edit]

Catedral Francesa, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-22, DD 16-18 HDR.jpg

  • Nomination French Cathedral, Berlin, Germany --Poco a poco 05:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 06:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The strange striations of differently colored light in the sky need to be explained. The sky is also pretty noisy. -- Ikan Kekek 09:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've seen those on my own night photos before, they're very likely clouds. --King of Hearts 05:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --King of Hearts 05:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:High-speed train at platform in Milano Stazione Centrale.jpg[edit]

High-speed train at platform in Milano Stazione Centrale.jpg

  • Nomination ETR 500 Italian high-speed train at Milano Centrale --Daniel Case 17:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Visible CA at the ceiling of the train station. Try to reduce highlights as well. --ElBute 16:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just to let you know I am working on this. Daniel Case 02:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done OK, this is what I could do. Daniel Case 22:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm afraid the overexposition at the end of the station is not recoverable. However, this is unavoidable and not the object of interest in the photo. In any case, the CA at the ceiling are still very noticeable. It's easy to fix that. --ElBute 10:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
yeah, efforts to fix the other end usually made the CA worse, so I had to strike a balance; if we just focus on that maybe it will work. Daniel Case 16:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I did it for you. If you don't agree, please revert. Good quality now. --ElBute 08:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice work but not QI for me.--Ermell 07:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Weak support; not perfect but good enough for QI, methinks. Seen worse been promoted before.--Peulle 22:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm sorry, but the background is just not good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background still looks overexposed; I know this kind of photos are not really easy, but like this it is not a Q1photo --Michielverbeek 07:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can tolerate the outside being blown out by this much. --King of Hearts 05:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Peulle. --W.carter 07:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --King of Hearts 05:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)