Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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

Nominations[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 21:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

August 12, 2020[edit]

August 11, 2020[edit]

August 10, 2020[edit]

August 9, 2020[edit]

August 8, 2020[edit]

August 7, 2020[edit]

August 6, 2020[edit]

August 5, 2020[edit]

August 4, 2020[edit]

August 3, 2020[edit]

August 2, 2020[edit]

August 1, 2020[edit]

July 26, 2020[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:Chiesa_San_Bernardo_cimasa_altare_sinistro_Montinelle_Manerba_del_Garda.jpg[edit]

Chiesa San Bernardo cimasa altare sinistro Montinelle Manerba del Garda.jpg

  • Nomination San Bernardo (Bernard of Clairvaux) church in Montinelle. --Moroder 04:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a QI --Poco a poco 19:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    I disagree --Moroder 21:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Wolfgang, I didn't give any details because as happened sometimes recently I was sure that you would withdraw it. I believe that the focus is much closer than the subjects of the image (the chord looks a bit sharper because it is closer to the camera). Poco a poco 19:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unless I'm missing something, so do I. Sharp enough at a large enough size to merit passing, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 02:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong focus and/or too low DOF: the central figure is not sharp. Also very weird composition. --Smial 13:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO the primary text, which is large relative to the photo, and the central sculpture, should not both be heavily blurred for QI (especially in a 20+ MB file and no obvious shooting limitations) --Scotch Mist 15:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Brabus,_GIMS_2018,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(1X7A1154).jpg[edit]

Brabus, GIMS 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex (1X7A1154).jpg

  • Nomination Range Rover Velar by Startech at Geneva International Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 16:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion Poor image quality - taken through a speckled glass window. Would be better if taken from inside the store. --Tagooty 07:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    The only glass between the sensor and the subject was the lens. Please mark any defects you see. --MB-one 09:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Paulina_Matysiak_Sejm_2019.jpg[edit]

Paulina Matysiak Sejm 2019.jpg

  • Nomination Paulina Matysiak. By User:Jacek Halicki --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quite noisy due to very high ISO --MB-one 10:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Original photo by User:Boston9 --Andrew J.Kurbiko 17:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me. Of course if I look the photo more than life-size it is noisy. -- Spurzem 08:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose is noisy sorry --Cvmontuy 18:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 06:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy for a portrait, imo.--Peulle 08:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Noisy, but useable in A4 or letter size or even larger. Probably not a studio shot. --Smial 14:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. If this was a 1 Megapixel photo, the noise would actually not be that bad. In the default Commons preview (0.4 Megapixels), the picture looks fine at first glance. But anything below 2 Megapixels is not a QI, and at 27 Megapixels, the picture is too noisy, despite (well-visible) repair attempts. This would have easily been a QI with ISO 100. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle --Sandro Halank 19:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just noise, far from QI Poco a poco 19:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 19:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Bochnia_Cemetery_Oracka_09.jpg[edit]

Bochnia Cemetery Oracka 09.jpg

  • Nomination Kusionowicz Family Tomb with Plaques & Memorial Lamps at Oracka Street Municipal Cemetery in Bochnia --Scotch Mist 05:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks too soft for an easy to take picture. Why ISO 400 in the middle of the day? --Podzemnik 20:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Podzemnik: Thanks for review - not quite "middle of the day" as UK camera settings (see lamps\shadows)! --Scotch Mist 05:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    No further comment after 4 days so submitting for other opinions ... --Scotch Mist 05:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Somewhat hard lighting, but good enough. I can't see really disturbing noise. --Smial 14:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Jardins_du_château_de_Josselin_(03)_05.jpg[edit]

Jardins du château de Josselin (03) 05.jpg

  • Nomination Italian statue in Lion's garden, Josselin castle. --Tsaag Valren 19:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some parts are blown --Podzemnik 21:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Partially blown areas and may be perspective issues. --XRay 07:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. The blown areas unfortunately concern the main motif, not unimportant, small details.--Smial 10:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 21:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Разрушенная_Никольская_церковь_(Семискуль)_и_заброшенная_братская_могила_времен_Гражданской_войны.jpg[edit]

Разрушенная Никольская церковь (Семискуль) и заброшенная братская могила времен Гражданской войны.jpg

  • Nomination The ruined Church of St. Nicholas (of Semismall) and abandoned the brotherly grave of the Civil war --Ольга Слотвинская 02:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Please fix the categories and provide geo tag if you can --Podzemnik 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Stepro 17:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Categories need fixing. Sorry but users should learn how to do that, I do it every now and then but I can't keep fixing all nominated pictures --Podzemnik 21:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yeah, COM:OVERCAT. When you fix that, I'll be happy to support this interesting picture. -- Ikan Kekek 08:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. Plus the picture is unsharp, which makes withdrawal of my oppose vote out of the question even in case the categories are fixed. --A.Savin 13:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --A.Savin 13:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Broel,_Guillac,_2019.jpg[edit]

Broel, Guillac, 2019.jpg

  • Nomination Le hongre Trotteur français bai Broel, portant un enrênement supérieur, à l'hippodrome de Saint-Jean-des-Prés, Guillac, France, 2019. --Tsaag Valren 13:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacks sharpness --Poco a poco 15:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco, not sharp enough for a QI picture of a horse. -- Ikan Kekek 20:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose +1. --Peulle 10:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?

File:Shogayaki_003.jpg[edit]

Shogayaki 003.jpg

  • Nomination Pork ginger set meal. --Ocdp 10:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not the setup for such a photo, DoF is too shallow, distracting/cropped elements, top crop too tight, not a QI, sorry --Poco a poco 15:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support The pork is sharp enough. I'd allow it. -- Ikan Kekek 21:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Commentso, this is not shogayaki set meal, but just pork shogayaki.--Ocdp 21:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Highlights slightly overexposed, and somewhat low DOF, but good composition, acceptable lighting and natural colours. Overall it is an appealingly photographed meal. --Smial 09:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco a poco --XRay 07:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI will supplement explanation. Cucumber pickles, miso soup, rice are not always necessary as an element of the shogayaki. They are, in a sense, background, and pork is a necessary element for shogayaki.--Ocdp 10:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So I will add some informations. DoF still too low, crop at the top to narrow, whole rice bowl should be visible or omit the bowl, the bowl top right is unsharp and only a quarter is visible. Some parts of the main object are overexposed/blown. Lower ISO and closer aperture are recommended. Hopefully the hints are helpful. --XRay 11:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco a poco. --Fischer.H 17:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? XRay 07:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Разлив_на_реке_Шавла.jpg[edit]

Разлив на реке Шавла.jpg

  • Nomination Shavla river, Altai. August 2012 --Veteran hiker 08:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed, no detail --Poco a poco 17:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. --SKas 18:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Massive, irritating oversharpening, probably also somewhat high colour saturation. A pity, because the composition and the lighting are really nice. --Smial 10:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others.--Peulle 10:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Are these problems correctable? I'd like to support this photo, if the issues described by Smial could be addressed. -- Ikan Kekek 00:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment An oversharpening, especially if it is combined with a noise reduction, cannot really be undone afterwards. Normally, the only way to do this is to edit the original from the camera, preferably if a raw file is available. --Smial 10:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 09:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Shrine_on_Mt_Aaron.jpg[edit]

Shrine on Mt Aaron.jpg

  • Nomination A 14th century shrine built on top of the supposed grave of Aaron on Jabal Hārūn in Petra, Jordan. --Joneikifi 23:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Not very sharp, wrong camera settings, sorry. --Moroder 01:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now I'm quite curious to find out what's wrong with the settings, considering 80 is the lowest ISO on the camera model, f/4.0 is near optimum aperture for the lens (7.1 starts hitting diffraction limit), 1/1250 should freeze any motion, and I can easily see one pixel sized details all over the image. --Joneikifi 03:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting keep.svg FixedUploaded a new higher resolution version with random other minor changes since I don't have access to my old settings from 2009. --Joneikifi 03:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    I don’t think you need a exposure of 1/1250 for a still image, therefore you should optimize aperture. --Moroder 04:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support The new development has somewhat dull colours compared to the first version, but sharpness, composition, noise etc. are ok. Thankfully no disturbing oversharpening. @Mordoder: This is a small sensor camera, and Joneikifi is absolutely right regarding the aperture setting. f-stops beyond f/5.6 kill details by diffracton and are mostly useless. --Smial 10:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The amount of contrast and other adjustments would have resulted in quite a vivid picture had there been any green plants present. The overall color of the place was very dull. White balance was the most difficult thing to choose since all the white surfaces, including the clouds, have various degrees of reddish orange tint from the famously reddish sand surrounding the area. --Joneikifi 10:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Smial, nominator. -- Ikan Kekek 00:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 19:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Scotch Mist 16:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The new version is definitely QI, I wouldn't have supported the first version for its small size Poco a poco 19:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 00:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion {{{2}}}

File:Северо_Чуйский_хребет._Вершина_Карагем_баши_(3962_м).jpg[edit]

Северо Чуйский хребет. Вершина Карагем баши (3962 м).jpg

  • Nomination The North Chuya ridge, Altai. September 2015 --Veteran hiker 07:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ercé 07:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Can we discuss this? Especially the bottom part looks washed out or without details like too much luminance has been applied --Podzemnik 21:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Impressive motive but missing quality--Ermell 09:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, it does look overprocessed.--Peulle 10:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral looks ok, lacking some details and could be a bit sharper, I would support if the right settings were used (ie no unnecessarily high ISO, comes from a reasonably large sensor) but exif data is not available. --Trougnouf 14:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 21:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

File:20191213_Cow_dung_fuel,_Himtasar_1143_8405.jpg[edit]

20191213 Cow dung fuel, Himtasar 1143 8405.jpg

  • Nomination Cow dung fuel stored behind a house in Himtasar village near Bikaner --Jakubhal 19:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --The Cosmonaut 02:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much distortion imo. --Kallerna 04:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kallerna --Sandro Halank 20:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kallerna --Trougnouf 14:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Trougnouf 14:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Teatro_romano_sulla_Piazza_Municipio_di_Terracina_(LT),_Lazio,_Italy_-_2020-07-17.jpg[edit]

Teatro romano sulla Piazza Municipio di Terracina (LT), Lazio, Italy - 2020-07-17.jpg

  • Nomination Ancient Roman theatre in town Terracina and sea in the background --Mænsard vokser 18:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Moroder 04:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Grainy, little detail, too much sky, underexposed on the main subject. --Kallerna 04:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kallerna. -- Ikan Kekek 09:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose +1. --Peulle 10:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kallerna --Trougnouf 14:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Trougnouf 14:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Barnish_tomb_at_Christ_Church,_Port_Sunlight.jpg[edit]

Barnish tomb at Christ Church, Port Sunlight.jpg

  • Nomination Tomb of Jane Ann Barnish at Christ Church, Port Sunlight --Rodhullandemu 12:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Moroder 04:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Partially overexposed. --Kallerna 04:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Where did you have in mind, and is it important? Rodhullandemu 08:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It’s the flowers but really irrelevant --Moroder 04:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks. I've reduced the highlights a little. Rodhullandemu 05:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Kallerna: Better? Rodhullandemu 20:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --P. Branquart (alias PJDespa) talk 10:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC))

File:Hatzerim_280616_Raam_02.jpg[edit]

Hatzerim 280616 Raam 02.jpg

  • Nomination Israeli Air Force 69 Squadron F-15I Raam taxiing at Hatzerim AFB. By User:Poliocretes --Andrew J.Kurbiko 09:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Moroder 04:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose foreground plane --Charlesjsharp 21:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Form is OK for me. I'd think of this as a "natural" foreground for the plane, and it doesn't block or IMO detract from the subject. -- Ikan Kekek 09:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Charles. The resolution is also rather small.--Peulle 10:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose low resolution --Trougnouf 14:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   ----Trougnouf 14:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)