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]] 10:03, 25 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 25, 2016[edit]

August 24, 2016[edit]

August 23, 2016[edit]

August 22, 2016[edit]

August 21, 2016[edit]

August 20, 2016[edit]

August 19, 2016[edit]

August 18, 2016[edit]

August 16, 2016[edit]

August 12, 2016[edit]

August 7, 2016[edit]

August 5, 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:PL-SK Kałków, Sanktuarium Matki Bożej Bolesnej Pani Świętokrzyskiej 2016-08-18--14-58-08-002.jpg[edit]

PL-SK Kałków, Sanktuarium Matki Bożej Bolesnej Pani Świętokrzyskiej 2016-08-18--14-58-08-002.jpg

  • Nomination Monument to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, Sanctuary in Kałków, Poland --Kroton 17:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition: tree (foreground) is disturbing--Lmbuga 20:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThe trees are part of the monument site, four of them planted in formation around the plane, no way to avoid them. --W.carter 20:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, but composition could be better, not QI IMO, sorry--Lmbuga 20:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki 21:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 06:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Parts of the plane are unsharp and overexposed --A.Savin 09:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as A.Savin. --Hubertl 09:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Also per A.Savin. --Peulle 10:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 10:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Eutin Königstraße.jpg[edit]

Eutin Königstraße.jpg

  • Nomination Half-timber house at Königstraße - Eutin, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. --Nordenfan 16:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment do you have a image with a less tight crop? --Hubertl 17:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC) *Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I´m afraid not. --Nordenfan 18:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak Pro, a third opinion is appreciated! --Hubertl 20:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The crop I can live with, but there is a lot of green and red CA all over the pic. Fixable though. --W.carter 21:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak Contra The crop is too tight, there is some red/green CA on the left side and the dust in the upper right is not fully corrected. All points should be fixable. --Dirtsc (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop, CA, jpeg artifacts. --Peulle 10:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the general look of the picture, but the post-processing needs improvement: fix the CA, less noise reduction to bring out the fine structural detail, fix the dust spot I have annotated in the picture. All of this can be done with a short PP session, then I will give my support. --Hendric Stattmann 20:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 20:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Ursus_arctos_horribilis_-_Zoo_Sauvage_de_Saint-Félicien_-_2016-07-19_(1).jpg[edit]

Ursus arctos horribilis - Zoo Sauvage de Saint-Félicien - 2016-07-19 (1).jpg

  • Nomination A grizzly bear (ursus arctos horribilis) at the Zoo Sauvage de Saint-Félicien --Letartean 03:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tiens, bon retour ! QI, btw.--Jebulon 11:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree; the subject is cropped too much and the DoF is not quite right, leaving parts of the head out of focus (see ears). Please discuss.--Peulle 07:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Eyes out of focus (nose is in focus), unfortunate crop, greenish cast. Sorry to decline... --Hendric Stattmann 07:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 07:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)