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]] 02:40, 22 May 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.

May 22, 2018[edit]

May 21, 2018[edit]

May 20, 2018[edit]

May 19, 2018[edit]

May 18, 2018[edit]

May 17, 2018[edit]

May 16, 2018[edit]

May 15, 2018[edit]

May 14, 2018[edit]

May 13, 2018[edit]

May 12, 2018[edit]

May 11, 2018[edit]

May 09, 2018[edit]

May 07, 2018[edit]

May 05, 2018[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:2018-05-06_Fünfmarkstückeiche,_Kierspe,_NRW_01.jpg[edit]

2018-05-06 Fünfmarkstückeiche, Kierspe, NRW 01.jpg

  • Nomination Fünfmarkstückeiche, ND 2.3.2, südöstlich v. Haus Rhade, 58566 Kierspe. By User:YvoBentele --XRay 11:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality.--ArildV 15:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I'm not convinced here, it definitely lacks detail. --Poco a poco 15:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - The sky is slightly noisy, but a good landscape, and in a landscape, it is unnecessary to focus on the small details of individual trees and blades of grass. -- Ikan Kekek 18:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 14:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:20180515_Freistadt_2022.jpg[edit]

20180515 Freistadt 2022.jpg

  • Nomination Freistadt: Sowjetrussischer Soldatenfriedhof Freistadt. By User:Ailura --Granada 18:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose excesive marque Top distracting and noise --The Photographer 19:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    I want more opinios on this image. --Granada 05:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Per The Photographer, I wish the leaves ended a little closer to the viewer's eye. However, I like the composition with the streaming leaves very much, and I think the result is acceptable for QIC. -- Ikan Kekek 06:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 14:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:2018-05-04_(213)_31_81_5380_206-7_at_Bahnhof_St._Valentin.jpg[edit]

2018-05-04 (213) 31 81 5380 206-7 at Bahnhof St. Valentin.jpg

  • Nomination 31 81 5380 206-7 at Bahnhof St. Valentin. --GT1976 07:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Good but there is a bit of tilt in ccw direction --Poco a poco 08:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --Billy69150 09:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I don't understand this review, Billy69150. I've already reviewed this image and came to the conclusion that it needs a tilt to become QI. It still does because no update was uploaded. So, now you are forcing me to move this image to CR, which is a waste of ressources of the reviewers here. --Poco a poco 15:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Tilted.--Peulle 16:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Basotxerri 19:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Morské_oko_(v_máji)_001.jpg[edit]

Morské oko (v máji) 001.jpg

  • Nomination Morské oko --Milan Bališin 19:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support null --Daniel Case 04:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose OK, your luck ran out here ... too muhc of the faded sky and very unsharp at the ridge --Daniel Case 04:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: Please become one with yourself. --Milseburg 09:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Now this was meant to be a decline. Daniel Case 21:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 11:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Morské_oko_(v_máji)_003.jpg[edit]

Morské oko (v máji) 003.jpg

  • Nomination Morské oko --Milan Bališin 19:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose null --Daniel Case 04:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Better color here --Daniel Case 04:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: Please become one with yourself. --Milseburg 09:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Oops! I accidentally clicked the same image twice. Appropriately amended. Daniel Case 21:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Cayambe 12:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Peulle 21:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Puerto_de_Ketchikan,_Alaska,_Estados_Unidos,_2017-08-16,_DD_49.jpg[edit]

Puerto de Ketchikan, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-16, DD 49.jpg

  • Nomination Port of Ketchikan, Alaska, United States --Poco a poco 20:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose null --Ermell 22:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Sorry mistake using that tool.
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Basotxerri 15:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Excellent. -- Ikan Kekek 18:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Cayambe 12:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Peulle 11:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Sankt_Valentin_Kirche_innen_Verdings_Klausen.jpg[edit]

Sankt Valentin Kirche innen Verdings Klausen.jpg

  • Nomination Interior view of the Saint Valentin church in Verdings South Tyrol --Moroder 03:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Blurred person is disturbing ans well as the lot of noise. --Ermell 19:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC) ✓  Done Fixed --Moroder 20:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Good job. I didn't think it could be fixed. The image should also be aligned. The people on the benches on the left would surely all slide into the corner. I think the threshold is the best reference point.--Ermell (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Sorry but I don't understand which "people on the benches" and your point --Moroder 10:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment The people who might be sitting on the benches on the left. The whole left side of the picture tilts down.--Ermell 10:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment This is usual perspective effect, somewhat uncommon for human eyes because of use of wide angle lens. Probably I will never understand, why this effect is generally accepted in outdoor photography as in e.g. File:Tidstrands Yllefabriker May 2018 01.jpg (roof tilted up and base tilted down!!!) or File:Leksands tingsrätt May 2018 01.jpg (same for all walls, roof, windows...), but here again not in indoor photos. For a visual explanation please have a look at File:Weitwinkelinnenraum animation.webm. --Smial 10:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment But it is fixable as far as I know. In some cases this doesn't bother but in this case it does.--Ermell 15:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I don't know how to fix this without creating other scary distortions or using an orthographic "camera". --Smial 08:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Ps: I don't understand why people on that benches would slide into the corner while no one would expect this freight waggon to roll away on its own...
I'd like to see what the result including the other scary distortions would look like. -- Ikan Kekek 10:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment [For example].--Ermell (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I think I like this version better than that. I'm still unsure whether or how to vote, though. -- Ikan Kekek 03:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I dare to say my version looks a bit less flat --Moroder 09:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I can imagine that it is very difficult to take a good picture in this church. But still, this is not a quality image. It looks too distorted and the light from the left disturbs too much. -- Spurzem 11:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   ----Ermell (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Börnste,_Wiese_--_2018_--_2359.jpg[edit]

Dülmen, Börnste, Wiese -- 2018 -- 2359.jpg

  • Nomination Gate to a Pasture in the hamlet Börnste, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany in the hamlet Börnste, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Insufficient quality. DOF Why f/2.8. Sorry --Moroder 09:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment IMO f/2.8 is good to have the gate sharp. The gate is the motive and it's sharp. It not necessary to have the background or the foreground sharp. --XRay 16:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Intentional DOF, good lighting, and composition. The gate as main motive should be mentioned in the file name and/or the file description just to make it easier for users seeking for an image of a gate. --Smial 09:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I've modified the description to show that the motive is the gate. --XRay 10:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - OK, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 10:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Sorry, DOF (blurred areas at background and foreground do not seem adequate for QI IMO) and chromatic aberrations (see note). Also, the picture (the subject) seems tilted CW.--Lmbuga 12:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓  Fixed CAs fixed. Thanks for your advice. And I don't think it's titled. The gate itself, yes. The camera was in level.--XRay 15:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Weak support I don't like to much the picture. It's on the limit. It is evident that the gate is tilted. The surprising thing is that none of the posts is right. I think. Despite believing that you say, I think that if the less crooked (or tilted) post was right, the photo would improve (but I have no right to ask you that). Thanks for your understanding and your photos (es:Es evidente que la verja está torcida. Lo sorprendente es que ninguno de los postes esté derecho. Te creo. A pesar de creerte, pienso que si el poste menos torcido estuviese derecho la foto mejoraría (pero no tengo derecho a pedirte eso). Gracias por tu comprensión y tus fotos.) --Lmbuga 13:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The posts are not in a level, just natural wood. I would expect the post on the left should be vertical, but it isn't. It is not easy to find true verticals in this photograph. --XRay 21:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 20:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Amazing_wedding_photography.jpg[edit]

Amazing wedding photography.jpg

  • Nomination: Bride from BangladeshI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:. By User:Jubair1985 --Masum-al-hasan 11:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support I don't know if you need an official permission of the bride for publication on Commons. However it is a nice photo, but the details might have been sharper. It would have been better if you would have used more light and choice a shorter exposure. --Michielverbeek 13:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Tilted --Uoaei1 06:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support The tilted composition is intentional in this case. I would have liked a somewhat deeper DoF so the hands weren't blurry, but the face is sharp.--Peulle 22:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose the tilt might have artistic value, but not for QI. --MB-one 09:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per MB-one. Tournasol7 16:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - I can't believe this photo is likely to be declined because of intentional tilting. Obviously, everyone who looks at it knows the woman isn't actually standing at a slant. The photo is otherwise good enough for QI, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 17:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Wonderful ! --Billy69150 09:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per MB-one --Lmbuga 13:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I'm also not finding this tilt very well done. It looks like a mistake more than an intention, and I don't see the purpose. Would support the corrected version, though -- Basile Morin 02:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 11:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Christmas_Tram,_Budapest.jpg[edit]

Christmas Tram, Budapest.jpg

  • Nomination Christmas Tram, Budapest, HungaryI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:. By User:Epistola8 --Shizhao 03:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg  Neutral I think this images deserves a CR discussion: on the one hand I see an interesting, abstract, freaky and cool shot, on the other hand I can't see anything in focus (camera shake?). --Basotxerri 08:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I can see the effect the photographer was going for, but I don't think it succeeded in this case.--Peulle 11:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose as per Peulle -- Bijay chaurasia 09:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support A not common sight. I am amazed and I think it achieves QI status in its kind. --Milseburg 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Per Milseburg -- Basile Morin 08:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg  Weak support --Billy69150 15:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose This is good photo from an artistic point of view, but as encyclopedic value it's not QI for me. Tournasol7 17:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - This is not Wikipedia. It's a repository of photos, and this is quite a striking one. -- Ikan Kekek 17:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose artistic value ≠ quality. Maybe FP, but not QI. --MB-one 09:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support good quality light in motion blur image Christian Ferrer 19:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Perhaps modern art but no QI for me -- Spurzem 20:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose --Ralf Roletschek 20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 13:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)