Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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


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]] 17:41, 27 September 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.

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 16, 2016[edit]

September 14, 2016[edit]

September 8, 2016[edit]

Consensual review[edit]


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]


Monument to Empress Elisabeth, Volksgarten Vienna, September 2016.jpg

  • Nomination Monument to Empress Elisabeth of Austria (Sisi), in the Volksgarten close to the Hofburg imperial palace in Vienna. --Martin Falbisoner 12:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please reprocess it if possible, its badly overexposed. --Hubertl 20:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {{o}}, I´m sorry, but obviously, this scenery is, because of the Burghtheater in the background, not captureable at this daytime without using HDR. I send it to CR for additional opinions. --Hubertl 14:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment fair enough! I'll give it another try - I've redone the picture and the current version is imo much better than my first update. Please have another look, @Hubertl et al. Thanks --Martin Falbisoner 15:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Changed to Symbol support vote.svg Support with the last result. BTW, it´s a great motif, this Volksgarten, Martin. I spent days there, because it´s just a short distance from were I live. And I learned a lot, how to manage those kind of motifs. --Hubertl 06:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Much improved from the first version and quite good. -- Ikan Kekek 09:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


Lüdinghausen, Jüdischer Friedhof -- 2016 -- 3655.jpg

  • Nomination Jewish Cemetery in Lüdinghausen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good focus to main object, but sky is overexposed and spoil the photo. --Michielverbeek 06:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed I'd tried to fix this. Would you please so kind and check the image again? Thank you. --XRay 05:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed, it is looking much better and I don't see any reason for declining --Michielverbeek 05:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


29. Ulica - Krakowski Teatr Tańca - Estra & Andro - 20160708 2649.jpg

  • Nomination Cracow Dance Theatre in the show "Estra & Andro" at 29. ULICA – The International Festival of Street Theatres in Kraków --Jakubhal 21:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice action shot sharp and all, but all the cut things on the right side as opposed to the extra space on the left really spoil the picture. I doubt very much that this is salvageble since any cropping would cut off other things. Pity. --W.carter 08:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, don't see any problem with the composition --Moroder 18:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose After thinking about it for a while, I'm coming down on the side of W.carter with a weak oppose vote. The shot is difficult given the movement, but the dancer on the right is cut tightly as well as being out of focus. It's a shame given the quality of the rest of it, so I can only echo the first reviewer: pity.--Peulle 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Face of the main person in the center of the image out of focus. Sorry, I like the composition very much, colors and lighting are good and the action is really great captured. But the point of sharpness is somewhat random. Pity. --Smial 09:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Ps: Such scenes sometimes demand surprisingly high ISO settings to get short exposure times.
  • Mild Symbol support vote.svg Support - You folks are really tough customers on this one! Looking at this not at full size but a full-page size on my monitor, it's a very good composition that really captures the action and sense of motion well. I, too, wish the blonde dancer weren't cropped at the right, but I think this picture captures the essence of the dance quite well enough to merit being featured. -- Ikan Kekek 08:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, you are the one who started the "Are QIC standards high enough?" thread on the QIC talk page... ;-) I think that the same comments that are made here, would pop up again if it was ever nominated as an FPC. cart-Talk 08:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yes, I did, but I seem to have discovered that the answer is that the standards on quality are lower here. I would not vote to feature this picture. -- Ikan Kekek 08:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


Villa Carlotta 3469.jpg

  • Nomination Villa Carlotta --Hamster28 07:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is overexposed, is there a way to get back the detail reducing the highlights? Poco a poco 20:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable, Light but not burned out. Overall high enough quality imo.--ArildV 17:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If the both of you can not decide: discuss--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 16:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was about to say the same; let's go to CR. @Hamster28:, please have a look at the review and see if you wish to make any changes to the image.--Peulle 17:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Dahlia 'Happy Days' in Jardin des Plantes de Toulouse 03.jpg[edit]

Dahlia 'Happy Days' in Jardin des Plantes de Toulouse 03.jpg

  • Nomination Dahlia 'Happy Days' in Jardin des Plantes de Toulouse. By --Tournasol7 21:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality -- Spurzem 22:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I disagree, nothing is sharp --A.Savin 11:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree; the DoF is not deep enough so there is very few things sharp in this shot.--Peulle 09:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 06:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)