Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to 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]] 02:30, 21 August 2018 (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 21, 2018[edit]

August 20, 2018[edit]

August 19, 2018[edit]


August 18, 2018[edit]

August 17, 2018[edit]

August 16, 2018[edit]

August 15, 2018[edit]

August 14, 2018[edit]

August 13, 2018[edit]

August 12, 2018[edit]

August 11, 2018[edit]

August 10, 2018[edit]

August 7, 2018[edit]

August 6, 2018[edit]

August 5, 2018[edit]

August 4, 2018[edit]

August 3, 2018[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]


Landscape of Rahier under a cloudy sky.jpg

  • Nomination Landscape under a cloudy sky in Rahier (Stoumont, Wallonia, Belgium) --PJDespa 21:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilted CW.--Peulle 22:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Hope it is better now. --PJDespa 22:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't know this place but the image looks still tilted, doesn't it? --Basotxerri 20:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I reverted the picture. Yes, it is true, this landscape looks tilt but this landscape is like that. I can't change this picture because it would change the reality.I hope you will be convinced by my point of view otherwise let's open a discussion ?--PJDespa 12:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It remains tilted. The landscape can't look like this; I know there are hills in the world but looking at the wood across the field, the trees are all tilted. Trees don't grow like that.--Peulle 18:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Some trees are looking tilted but also some trees absolutely not, so a Symbol support vote.svg Support. Btw: I know Stoumont and the Ardennes; it is sometimes very difficult to estimate if your composition needs a small rotation or not. --Michielverbeek 07:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As for Peulle. Some leaning trees are ok, but that's the complete small forest in the background leaning. The second version looks rather ok, and I would support that version. --Smial 08:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • vote changed to Symbol support vote.svg Support --Smial 13:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK Smial, I change into the second version as you find it better. --PJDespa (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me now. Difficult to find a reliable clue for alignment. --Milseburg 13:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 13:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 14:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


Distrito de Ketchikan Gateway, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-16, DD 07.jpg

  • Nomination Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska, United States --Poco a poco 03:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lacks detail in the water. --MB-one 10:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded --Poco a poco 07:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sending this to CR for further discussion. For me, the noise is too high. Why ISO 1000 at this time of day?--Peulle 18:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    Have you ever gone for aerial photography with bad weather? --Poco a poco 08:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
No. As far as I recall, there's nothing in the guidelines about the conditions, so that becomes a part of reviewers' individual judgement as to whether they want to take the conditions into account when judging the results. Let's see what others think. --Peulle 16:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This has really too much noise. I do not understand, why 1/800s was necessary for this shot. The Lens has IS, so 1/125s or even longer exposure time should have been possible, and f/5.6 and also lower ISO. Nice composition and natural colours, though. --Smial 18:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 10:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


Église Saint-Nicolas de Maillezais-1.jpg

  • Nomination Église Saint Nicolas de Maillezais Vendée Pays de la Loire.- France.--Pierre André Leclercq 08:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Dust spots in the sky, copy paste artifacts in the foreground. Could you fix that? This would get better if you raise the shadows and lower the highlights. --Basotxerri 07:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version of the photo with the corrections needed, thank you for your advice.--Pierre André Leclercq 09:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The shadows are darker now than before. Basotxerri suggested the opposite. --MB-one 10:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Pierre André, my suggestion was to let the shadows brighter and the highlights a bit darker. This still hasn't been done yet. You should use the RAW file for it. If you can't do it, I suggest that you go back to the very first upload and fix the spots and the front area, the last three versions are not at QI level. By the way, you've changed the perspective, too, now the left side is leaning out, this was OK on the very first upload. --Basotxerri 16:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Basotxerri, thank you for your advice. I have no RAW file. So I came back to the first version uploaded to fix the spots and the front area. Regards,--Pierre André Leclercq 20:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've checked it again and I'm still not convinced. I'd like to hear other opinions. --Basotxerri 15:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO the shadows are too strong, it was not the right moment of the day to make this photo. Photo is also no detailed enough for me, not a Q! --Michielverbeek 06:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 11:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)