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 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]] 03:51, 20 June 2019 (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.
If there are terms you are unfamiliar with, please see explanations at Photography terms.

Thank you.



June 20, 2019[edit]

June 19, 2019[edit]

June 18, 2019[edit]

June 17, 2019[edit]

June 16, 2019[edit]

June 15, 2019[edit]

June 14, 2019[edit]

June 13, 2019[edit]

June 12, 2019[edit]

June 11, 2019[edit]

June 9, 2019[edit]

June 8, 2019[edit]

June 7, 2019[edit]

June 4, 2019[edit]

May 31, 2019[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:Rupa_Lake_&_paddy_fields.jpg[edit]

Rupa Lake & paddy fields.jpg

  • Nomination A small river connecting to Rupa Lake, Kaski, Nepal.By User:Chandrackd --Biplab Anand 08:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support
    good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 08:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. This is large file, but it need the perspective correction and it's not sharp enough IMO. --Tournasol7 11:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stitching errors with double contours in the upper half of the image. --Smial 11:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 01:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Annapurna-view-ghandru.jpg[edit]

Annapurna-view-ghandru.jpg

  • Nomination Annapurna Himalayan Range and Mount Machhapuchchhre view from Ghandruk. By User:Chandrackd --Biplab Anand 08:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 08:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Less then 2 MP. --Tournasol7 11:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose According to the rules, this cannot be promoted as it has less than 2 MP --Uoaei1 18:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small.--Peulle 08:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Should be speedily declined per others. -- Ikan Kekek 01:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   speedily declined. --Peulle 13:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Dudhkund_Lake.jpg[edit]

Dudhkund Lake.jpg

  • Nomination Dudhkund Lake, Solukhumbu. By User:Chandrackd --Biplab Anand 08:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --SH6188 12:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavily downscaled + disturbing cap(?) in bottom left corner --Tsungam 13:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Tsungam.--Peulle 08:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA, too strong downscaling. --Smial 11:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake_Phewa.jpg[edit]

Lake Phewa.jpg

  • Nomination Phewa Lake, Pokhara, Nepal. By User:Chandrackd --Biplab Anand 08:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --SH6188 12:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only without the dust spots. --Ermell 12:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --大诺史 14:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now until dust spots are cleanded (which will be a hard task) --Uoaei1 18:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dust, CA, too strong downscaling. --Smial 11:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others for the dust or rain spots, without prejudice to Smial's other point. -- Ikan Kekek 19:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 19:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Abraham_Erb's_Grist_Mill.jpg[edit]

Abraham Erb's Grist Mill.jpg

  • Nomination Abraham Erb's Grist Mill, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. --СССР 04:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough, sorry. --Tournasol7 06:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done: improved sharpness. --СССР 04:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mobile phone shots are often not good enough for QI. This one has lots of sharpening artefacts and a general lack of detail.--Peulle 09:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image and interesting motive -- Spurzem 11:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, and yes, the motif is great but isn't at issue. -- Ikan Kekek 00:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Spurzem. --Manfred Kuzel 08:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurring noise reduction kills details. This can not be fixed by oversharpening the original image, sorry. A pity,because the motif, composition, and lighting are really nice. --Smial 09:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Smial. It’s a pity, because subject and framing are good. --Aristeas 10:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Seven Pandas 01:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Geneva_International_Motor_Show_2018,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(1X7A0410).jpg[edit]

Geneva International Motor Show 2018, Le Grand-Saconnex (1X7A0410).jpg

  • Nomination McLaren Senna at Geneva International Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 20:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think a cropped image should be promoted --大诺史 12:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. No rule against cropping. --MB-one 11:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The technical quality is fine, but I also have a problem with the composition; the subject isn't quite clear to me. It seems like it's a shot of the door, but also includes other things - but only partly. The half-cropped wheel in particular is a bit disturbing.--Peulle 09:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not see the supposedly serious lack of this detail. Incidentally, I remember photos of some critics who were less convincing and yet presented here as QI. -- Spurzem 11:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Crop and sharpness are OK, IMO. I'm assuming the penumbras are really purplish. -- Ikan Kekek 00:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No problem--Moroder 09:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-05-18_Fußball,_Frauen,_UEFA_Women's_Champions_League,_Olympique_Lyonnais_-_FC_Barcelona_StP_1076_LR10_by_Stepro.jpg[edit]

2019-05-18 Fußball, Frauen, UEFA Women's Champions League, Olympique Lyonnais - FC Barcelona StP 1076 LR10 by Stepro.jpg

  • Nomination UEFA Women's Champions League, Olympique Lyonnais - FC Barcelona; celebration bei Olympique Lyonnais über das 0:4; Tor, goal --Stepro 03:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy IMO. --Tournasol7 04:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok to me. --Piotr Bart 17:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Also ok for me. However what are the names of the players? Woman at the right looks like Shanice van de Sanden --Michielverbeek 06:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good shot in spite of the noisy background. But also I would like to know the names of the women. -- Spurzem 11:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sorry, the names were only in the cats, I've added them to description. --Stepro 14:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Sharp enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 00:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:The-promised-neverland-logo.svg[edit]

The-promised-neverland-logo.svg

  • Nomination Logo of anime The Promised Neverland --Vulphere 03:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not made by a wikimedian. --Piotr Bart 15:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Please note: when judging whether these images are "made by a Commoner" or not, all these images should be judged the same.--Peulle 08:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Guidelines for quality images clearly states that images must be made by a Commoner, so "Not made by a Wikimedian" is a valid adjudication. -- Piotr Bart 11:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Was that for me? I agree with you, just so we're clear. I just wanted to add that if we decide that these images currently in CR are not made by a Commoner, then that should apply to all of them.--Peulle 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per rules --Uoaei1 17:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Uoaei1 17:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_ehem._St.-Barbara-Kaserne_--_2019_--_6394.jpg[edit]

Dülmen, ehem. St.-Barbara-Kaserne -- 2019 -- 6394.jpg

  • Nomination Former barracks in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Dappled light. Poor composition. Sorry. --Stoxastikos 17:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Stoxastikos: It's an old, abandoned and unused building within the former barracks. The plants are growing up. The dappled light emphasizes the plants. Why do you think it's a poor composition? --XRay 15:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @XRay: You ask why, in my opinion, this picture suffers from bad composition? Well, because it’s not beautiful. OK, OK, just kidding. I won’t touch on aesthetics here because, after all, it’s a subjective thing. Rather, technically speaking, I would claim that the photo represents the subject in a poor way. First of all, I (maybe naively) believe, that entire point of taking a picture is to tell a story or, if not, to convey a feeling. You say it’s an abandoned barracks, and I have no reason to disbelieve you. Sure it is. But how would I know it if you wouldn’t tell me? What’s so barracky about it? It’s just some wall that could belong to any building whatsoever. So, without your explanation I am not able to extract any meaning from the photo and thus can’t feel the desolation you are talking about. It’s hard for me to feel anything while looking at the plain brick wall. It’s a job of the photographer to find an angle at which the building would look forlorn and abandoned without any explanations. In other words, the picture should speak for itself. Second reason is perspective. Shooting through the canopy of the foliage in the sunny day while standing in shadow inevitably produces washed out sky. The result is usually made even more unnatural by the harsh contrast between the totally white background and darker leaves. Now, to the third point. Truth to be told, I don’t particularly care for your shooting the wall head on, so it looks completely flat, with no dimensions outside the classic Cartesian X and Y. I’d like to see at least some hint of Z, which would be possible only if the picture was taken from an angle. And, finally, about the dappled light. It does not emphasize the trees. To the contrary. It is very well known, that human eyes looking at any picture or painting go first to the brightest spot. That’s why many photographers use various techniques to switch the attention of the viewer to the most important part of the picture. Using vignetting, dodge and burn etc. they make the most important parts brighter and less important – darker. The dappled light acts effectively as a camouflage hiding the wall by forcing the eyes to wander choosing one of the multiple bright spots, of which the most are located in the sky here. Therefore the building remains the last to be seen. I sure may be wrong. It’s just my take from this particular picture. Stoxastikos 20:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Wrong or not, your answer is really good. I can follow your arguments, yes. The photo alone does not express it. I've taken a lot of photographs and hopefully they all together will express it. The photographs are used for a project of the history of the cold war. It's just an impression of the former barracks. Other photos may taken much easier, these one with the plants (and a lot of fences) not. But I didn't expected such answer, a really good explanation of your review. Thanks a lot! --XRay 08:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @XRay: You are very welcome! If I may suggest a way to make this picture more telling even from this angle, you can try the following: come at night, when it's dark, place the camera on the tripod, make the exposure longer using ND filter or just close the aperture and lower the ISO, and then use some light painting concentrating on the window to create an impression of a slight glow emanating from the inside. After some trial and error it may turn out spooky enough to emphasize the full point: the war slowly fading away in the shadows of history. Stoxastikos 09:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but these photographs are used as a document for a project of the Cold War in the Münsterland. It would be too artifical for this project. But thank you for your ideas. --XRay 18:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good quality and an acceptable composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 00:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture with the disturbing shadows does not correspond to its description. -- Spurzem 16:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC) I change to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. Look below. -- Spurzem 16:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Spurzem: Why not? It's part of the barracks. --XRay 15:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@XRay: Please do not mind me, but it is really only a very small part of the barracks, and the shadows and bushes are too disturbing to give an idea of the building. -- Spurzem 16:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem, thank you. Some of the buildings are still in use (for companies and other), some are waiting for demolition - like this one. It's overgrown since a lot of years. --XRay 16:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. --M@nfred (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. --Aristeas 12:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)