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]] 19:51, 17 January 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.


January 17, 2017[edit]

January 16, 2017[edit]

January 15, 2017[edit]

January 14, 2017[edit]

January 13, 2017[edit]

January 12, 2017[edit]

January 11, 2017[edit]

January 10, 2017[edit]

January 9, 2017[edit]

January 8, 2017[edit]

January 6, 2017[edit]

January 3, 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:Prague 07-2016 View from Powder Tower img3.jpg[edit]

Prague 07-2016 View from Powder Tower img3.jpg

  • Nomination Prague: view from Powder Tower towards Old Town --A.Savin 18:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The photo in general is quite good, but please talk about the pronounced slant in the road on either side of the block in the foreground. It gives this viewer a very strange feeling. If the slants are accurate, this photo should be promoted right away. -- Ikan Kekek 13:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I didn't quite well understand what's the problem, Maybe you mean the uw-angle distortion, then you're probably right and I cannot do much about it... --A.Savin 17:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
To clarify: The road on the left of the building slants pretty drastically down to the left, and the road on the right of the building slants pretty drastically down to the right. If the roads are in fact level or nearly level, widthwise, I find that distortion too great and distracting to want to promote this picture, but I'd be happy to open it up to consideration at CR. -- Ikan Kekek 19:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose have to agree that the slants in the roads are very distracting from the image overall and too much for me to see a QI in this but CR is always there if you disagree. EoRdE6 06:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree Tons of images with compulsively straightened verticals have been promoted here on com:qic as long as the camera looked upward. Now we have exactly the same effect, but the camera looked downward. Yes, this is ugly in my opinion, but it is not worse than many promoted church towers. --Smial 18:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per my remarks above and EoRdE6. -- Ikan Kekek 21:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I absolutely agree Smial We wave all distorted towers through because imho we overuse the perspective correction in a quite bizarre and obsessive way (what I do not like at all, but its my personal opinion). So we have to accept this as QI as well and accept the correction as an artistic decisison of the photographer. -- DerFussi 12:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --DerFussi 12:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:EC_163_Transalpin.jpg[edit]

EC 163 Transalpin.jpg

  • Nomination EC 163 „Transalpin“ from Zürich to Graz passes Flaurling on the Arlbergbahn --Liberaler Humanist 16:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very pretty, reminds me of Kabelleger's photos --A.Savin 17:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree, really pretty. But sorry for questioning. Is the engine sharp enough? And a bit noisy? -- DerFussi 21:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per DerFussi: Yes, a bit, but it's an excellent photograph, and I don't think that level of near-perfection is needed to pass. I'm not sure I'd even advise Liberaler Humanist to make any changes, although if it's possible to very slightly tweak the sharpness and noise reduction without hurting the overall picture, sure thing, and then it might pass FPC, if nominated there, too. -- Ikan Kekek 21:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 21:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Bystrzyca_Kłodzka,_ratusz,_13.JPG[edit]

Bystrzyca Kłodzka, ratusz, 13.JPG

  • Nomination Town hall in Bystrzyca Kłodzka 1 --Jacek Halicki 09:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 09:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree Top of the building is unsharp, sorry --Cvmontuy 20:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Jacek Halicki, is that improvable? I guess I think it's good enough, anyway, so I give you mild Symbol support vote.svg Support, but if you could improve the top of the building, that would be better. -- Ikan Kekek 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with user Cvmontuy. Sorry Jacek, but he's got right. --Halavar 22:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:St._James_Episcopal_Church_Wilmington_02.jpg[edit]

St. James Episcopal Church Wilmington 02.jpg

  • Nomination St. James Episcopal Church, a historic Episcopal church in Wilmington --EoRdE6 15:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Needs perspective correction. Declined pending corrections, which could change my vote. -- Ikan Kekek 16:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC) *@Ikan Kekek: How about now? --EoRdE6 03:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Nope. Still leaning back, etc. -- Ikan Kekek 00:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As you haven't fixed the problem, I am declining the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek 20:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I attempted a fix but found it very unnatural, this photo was taken intentionally to capture this perspective. EoRdE6 05:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The problem here is not the church, but the building on the right, which is leaning heavily. Images playing with perspective of tall buildings are usually taken from closer range; here you're in between close and long range, making it difficult to do anything afterwards. Solution: reshoot. Either from further away (and correct the perspective afterwards) or closer, intentionally playing with the perspective. See the QI Guidelines (section: distortions) for more, and you can find a lot of examples of images playing with perspective here.--Peulle 17:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Those are good suggestions (I do feel it necessary to justify this angle though with the fact there was a four lane highway directly in front of me and a fence directly behind me) EoRdE6 03:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Understood, but that doesn't make the result a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 07:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Please sign your comment in order for the vote to be valid.--Peulle 13:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Ikan Kekek 05:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2016-09-21-Heliosturm_Köln-0080.jpg[edit]

2016-09-21-Heliosturm Köln-0080.jpg

  • Nomination Ancient lighthouse in Cologne-Ehrenfeld --Superbass 20:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Main object is for me not sharep enough for Q1 and the sky is a bit noisy, sorry a weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Michielverbeek 06:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The spots in the sky are a result of sensor misfunction of the drone camera. It will be hard work to clone them out. The tower is sharp enough IMO.--Ermell 07:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough. --Sandro Halank 12:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a close call for me, but I end up voting per Michielverbeek.--Peulle 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support -- really diffucult. but at the end I agree Ermell and would vote for a weak support. -- DerFussi 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Tour_Hassan_a_Rabat_P1060435.JPG[edit]

Tour Hassan a Rabat P1060435.JPG

  • Nomination Hassan Tower, Rabat. By User:Pline --Reda benkhadra 02:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. The detail on the two horse riders just isn't there. --Lucasbosch 09:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, worse photos were getting QI --Jacek Halicki 09:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment@Pline: Left side of tower slightly tilted which if resolved (perspective adjustment) without detriment to the rest of the image would make this QI for me. --Scotch Mist 10:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not quite my standard, but OK. --A.Savin 19:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree A.Savin -- DerFussi 21:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 21:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Jose Rizal National Monument.jpg[edit]

Jose Rizal National Monument.jpg

  • Nomination The monument of Jose Rizal in Manila, Philippines. --Adamdaley 22:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good focus to main object --Michielverbeek 23:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but before image gets promotion to QI, it needs perspective correction. --Halavar 02:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)voting changed, please see down. --Alchemist-hp 21:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perspective correction? Why? --Adamdaley 11:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Vertical lines should be straight. Look at the left side of the image - it leans to the right. --Halavar 13:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment new straightened version uploaded. @Halavar ok now? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok, it's good now. --Halavar 17:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Halavar so plese strike you oppose ;-) --Alchemist-hp 17:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Alchemist-hp 17:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:VFPt_dipole_animation.gif[edit]

VFPt dipole animation.gif

  • Nomination Animation of electric and magnetic dipole. Note that the resolution is intentionally in Wikipedia thumb size to minimize bandwidth requirements. --Geek3 16:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Intentional or not this fails the 2MP requirement for a quality image and is very clearly low quality. EoRdE6 01:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The rule is very clear: only .SVG files are exempt from the 2 megapixel minimum size requirement for QI.--Peulle 07:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good animation. The rule of 2MP is nonsense for animated gifs. What we are like to see more with more then 2MP??? --Alchemist-hp 10:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Alchemist-hp: what are you going to see? Higher resolution? Less aliasing? Less pixelation? The exact same benefits you get from a higher resolution photograph? It's no different, that's a poor argument. There is a reason GIFs are specifically included in the guideline. EoRdE6 14:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alchemist is right.--Ermell 11:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Guys, we've been over this: it doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not, we can't just decide to ignore the rules here in CR on a case by case basis. Non-.SVG images below 2MP are ineligible for nomination, that's just the way it is; this image has no business in CR.--Peulle 14:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Rules are rules. -- Ikan Kekek 16:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This image was created using a phyton script and IMHO, the important here is the source code present in the image description. It's not a photography and more size in this case is not more information --The Photographer 14:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - But the rule does not allow for exceptions. I suggest you propose a rule change. -- Ikan Kekek 17:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In the past the 2-Mpixel-rule has never been applied for animations and/or videos. --Smial 19:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That needs to be made explicit. -- Ikan Kekek 21:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am not against a rule change, but as long as the rule says what it says, we need to follow it.--Peulle 23:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not demand 2 MPixels for an animated GIF, but 220*220px is really too small. Many wikipedias have nowadays a thumbnail standard size of 250 or 300 px width. Standard VGA (640*480px resp. 480*480px for square images) should be minimum. --Smial 19:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The rule of 2MP is nonsense for animated gifs. --Ralf Roletschek 21:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 16:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2016_Kuala_Lumpur,_Świątynia_taoistyczna_Guan_Di_(08).jpg[edit]

2016 Kuala Lumpur, Świątynia taoistyczna Guan Di (08).jpg

  • Nomination Guan Di Taoist Temple. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. --Halavar 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seems oversaturated colors--Moroder 15:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New, fixed version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 18:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK, but now on a second look the composition, especially the top crop seems very unfortunate because you have space on the sides and you cut off the top. I believe we should go to CR with this picture? Cheers --Moroder 07:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, we should go to CR. --Halavar 12:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate crop.--Peulle (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 17:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Burg Questenberg.jpg[edit]

Burg Questenberg.jpg

  • Nomination Castle Questenberg, Germany --Vincent Eisfeld 12:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 13:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the photo have been overexopsed --Christian Ferrer 16:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. I agree with Christian. This is a classic view that reminds me of paintings from the Romantic era and earlier, but please tone down the highlights. -- Ikan Kekek 16:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree with Ikan, if highlighs are decreased more than now, then the photo will lose its artistic touch, it will be "flat", and still will not be a QI IMO, the overexposition came at the moment to take the photo. This is not too bright, it lacks of details in the brightest areas, that's all. --Christian Ferrer 18:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Of course I will defer to Christian's knowledge. -- Ikan Kekek 06:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me, nice composition and even lighting imo. Would be nice to have a geotag. --Moroder 12:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed. A pity, because the composition and lighting situation is really excellent. But there are lots of artifacts due to repairing the sky. --Smial 08:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Smial. --Alchemist-hp 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Alchemist-hp 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Niepolomice_09_-_Castle_Canon.jpg[edit]

Niepolomice 09 - Castle Canon.jpg

  • Nomination Canon with Korczak Crest in Courtyard of Hunting Castle in Niepołomice, near Kraków --Scotch Mist 11:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distortion at top --Daniel Case 05:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Daniel Case: Thank you for your review - if the previously cropped image was reverted to, or the image re-cropped, do you consider the image of the canon itself (without the courtyard wall) sufficient for QI? --Scotch Mist 16:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good view of that cannon, no problem with the background, as it is not a photo of an architectural object. If the perspective of that background would be corrected, the main object would be distorted absurdly. --Smial 23:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Smial. In fact, the top can be cropped. --Peulle 17:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Smial and Peulle. Cropping out the top is a good idea. -- Ikan Kekek 18:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 18:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)