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]] 01:10, 14 February 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.

February 14, 2016[edit]

February 13, 2016[edit]

February 12, 2016[edit]

February 11, 2016[edit]

February 10, 2016[edit]

February 9, 2016[edit]

February 8, 2016[edit]

February 7, 2016[edit]

February 6, 2016[edit]

February 4, 2016[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:Former_tire_factory_site_Continental_AG_Wasserstadt_Limmer_Hannover_Germany_01.jpg[edit]

Former tire factory site Continental AG Wasserstadt Limmer Hannover Germany 01.jpg

  • Nomination Remains of the former tire and rubber products factory of Continental AG. By User:ChristianSchd --Berthold Werner 08:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some chromatic aberrations. --A.Savin 14:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice picture, probably good enough. (accidentally forgot to add comment before) --Shansov.net 01:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Not done after 7 8 days --Hubertl 00:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 19:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Kazan_Cathedral_Saint_Petersburg.jpg[edit]

Kazan Cathedral Saint Petersburg.jpg

  • Nomination Kazan Cathedral in Saint Petersburg 1905. --Moroder 18:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Badly posterized sky. A pity, as this could have been a wow motif --A.Savin 19:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd like some other opinion --Moroder 17:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Shansov.net 18:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh really? --A.Savin 23:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me --Uoaei1 20:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1. Are there stars on the sky or matrix defects? 2. The right side of the cathedral leaning a bit. 3. What mean of 1905? --Florstein 21:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Dead pixels, I suppose --A.Savin 23:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 23:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

File:028_2014_08_04_Urlaub_Sulden.jpg[edit]

028 2014 08 04 Urlaub Sulden.jpg

  • Nomination New Parish Church of St. Gertraud. --F. Riedelio 16:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {{o}} Too much noise for a quality image.--Rftblr 18:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not see an overabundance of noise, other than the mountains when very zoomed in. Please point to the areas that are too noisy. --Balon Greyjoy 15:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The whole shadow area of the church exhibits noticeable noise. Some of what at first glance appears to be stains on the facade, is actually horizontal banding noise (horizontal bright stripes above the windows on the apse). For me this is not quality. --Rftblr 23:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done New developed version (Lightroom V6.4) uploaded. Additional noise decrease in Corel PaintShop Pro X7.

Info: The photo was made in RAW-format (.cr2), converted in Lightroom to .dng. and exported to .jpg. --F. Riedelio 14:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I withdraw my opposition. However I think you overdid the noise reduction on the top half of the aspe. Everything else looks OK now. Still, another reviewer should decide. --Rftblr 14:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition, but really too much noise, please look to the grass, sorry --Michielverbeek 23:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't even understand what you're talking about. Easily meets QI criteria. Noise is not an issue here (IMO noise is not an issue at all as long as it's not chromatic noise or leads to a loss of details, which is not the case here). --Code 07:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me --Uoaei1 20:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Uoaei1 20:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Eiffel tower (368).JPG[edit]

Eiffel tower (368).JPG

  • Nomination Eiffel Tower in Paris, France --Rijinatwiki 08:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Many chromatic aberrations. The tower is also leaning left a bit --A.Savin 17:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CAs and disturbing branches at the left. Composition could be better, dark area at the right.--XRay 18:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --XRay 18:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Jardín Botánico Olarizu 03.jpg[edit]

Jardín Botánico Olarizu 03.jpg

  • Nomination Botanical Garden of Olarizu. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 20:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, too dark for the real light situation --Hubertl 10:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Hubertl: Some s-curving might help to get better exposure, but the image is also blurred by noise reduction, not fixable. -- Smial 09:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 17:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_08_18_007_Weingut_Kimich_Deidesheim.jpg[edit]

2014 08 18 007 Weingut Kimich Deidesheim.jpg

  • Nomination Winery Kimich --F. Riedelio 13:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Jacek Halicki 13:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSky overexposed and eating in to neighbouring detail, otherwise good. --Prosthetic Head 16:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 09:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_Otmuchów,_kościół_śś._Mikołaja_i_Franciszka_Ksawerego_01.JPG[edit]

2014 Otmuchów, kościół śś. Mikołaja i Franciszka Ksawerego 01.JPG

  • Nomination Saints Nicholas and Francis Xavier church in Otmuchów 1 --Jacek Halicki 00:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate light situation, with overexposed sky at the left of the church. --C messier 14:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Should be slightly turned anti-clockwise to make the church upright. --Rftblr 22:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image.-- Шухрат Саъдиев 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 17:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_Stary_Paczków,_kościół_Wszystkich_Świętych_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Stary Paczków, kościół Wszystkich Świętych 02.JPG

  • Nomination Church of All Saints in Stary Paczków 1 --Jacek Halicki 00:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 12:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is nearly completely blown. Please discuss. --C messier 14:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry Jacek but I agree to Cmessier, the sky does not look nice --Michielverbeek 07:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cloudy sky is ok for me.--Ermell 09:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Burnt sky, not fixable. -- Smial 09:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sometimes the sky looks like this. The building is fine. --Palauenc05 15:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sky has been faked, and has massive overxposure, but if you think, this is ok for QI then it shall be so. -- Smial 20:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Burnt sky, crop is too tight at the top. This is not a QI. --Code 22:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Code 22:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Rückansicht.jpg[edit]

Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Rückansicht.jpg

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 --Basotxerri 18:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Background tilted cw. --Cccefalon 04:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Tilted CCW. Thank you. --Basotxerri 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose car is not centered, image does not look balanced --Rftblr 22:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop at the right -- Spurzem 23:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose-- Шухрат Саъдиев 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 17:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Vorderansicht.jpg[edit]

Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Vorderansicht.jpg

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 --Basotxerri 18:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok --Cccefalon 04:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose car is not centered, image does not look balanced --Rftblr 22:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop at the left -- Spurzem 23:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose-- Шухрат Саъдиев 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 17:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Museu da inconfidencia.JPG[edit]

Museu da inconfidencia.JPG

  • Nomination Museum of the Inconfidência, Ouro Preto, Brazil (by Ricardotakamura) --ArionEstar 21:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The overall quality is very bad. Nearly all details are gone. I don't know what happened in the postprocessing but this looks like upscaled ore somewhat. Hard to say. This cannot be QI in my eyes. --Code 14:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} CA, noise, posterisation. Sharpening and noise reduction fight against each other. Somewhat too high colour saturation. striked, because without signature --Hubertl 09:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC),br/>
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would say that for a 30 second exposure the loss of detail is not too bad, if it were downscaled until the detail loss was imperceptable it would still be a large enough image. It is only when viewing at original (very high) resolution that the flaws become very visible. --Prosthetic Head 13:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Severe CAs, perspective not corrected. At full resolution the quality is not acceptable, but downsized at nearly 6 Mpix, the level of detail is OK. And some overexposure on the walls near the lamps. --C messier 15:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavily processed (sharpened?), real image quality is not high enough at this resolution. --Shansov.net 02:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Шухрат Саъдиев 13:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nothing to add. --Carschten 10:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 15:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 10:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:May2015 Volgograd img06 View from Mamaev Hill.jpg[edit]

May2015 Volgograd img06 View from Mamaev Hill.jpg

  • Nomination Volgograd: view from Mamaev Hill --A.Savin 15:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality: An unfavourable image section (too much foreground), right edge of the image is out of focus. --F. Riedelio 08:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry please other opinion: it is the view as it is at this point, and where do you see any blurred areas? --A.Savin 14:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @A.Savin: Please see annotations. --F. Riedelio 13:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand your issues very well, but I don't get the problem. --A.Savin 16:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Please see annotations for my preferred cropping. --F. Riedelio 09:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would say too much sky, but the horizon is at the one third of the image. The composition actually lies at thirds (one sky, one city, one foreground). The lack of sharpness descripted isn't something worth declining (or mentioning). --C messier 15:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me is good --Livioandronico2013 21:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Шухрат Саъдиев 13:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overall somewhat weak sharpness, blurred details at margins. No double standards, please. -- Smial 18:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I never nominate pictures without looking if they are sharp enough. That you ape my comment is just stupid, however quite your usual level (Deutsche Wikipedia as it is). --A.Savin 19:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly your double standards. q.e.d. ;-) -- Smial 08:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Ps: In other words: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? ;-)
Matthaeus 7:3, wenn schon, denn schon.. ;-) --Hubertl 09:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Smial Once again: where do you see double standards by me? This picture I nominated IS sharp enough! Where did you see me ever nominate or promote pictures below QI standard? Is it not rather your best friend Ralf Roletschek who usually does this? Why then, if you are such a big fan of high-quality standards, do you tolerate it - only because he is your friend, yeah? Let me guess... Double standards? And could you please stop lying? Otherwise, we also may continue discussing on COM:ANU, if you prefer... --A.Savin 11:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
...except for your Moscow metro series? :) This image is sharp enough for an OOC jpeg from a camera with Bayer sensor (which is not sharp enough for my PERSONAL taste) --Shansov.net 13:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You must have confused me with s/o else, I have no "Moscow Metro series" and did just a very few photos in Moscow Metro. --A.Savin 13:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done 16:9 --A.Savin 13:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Smial and F. Riedelio. And of course our utmost best friend Ralf Roletschek. If you cannot accept critical, but well-meaning reviews, this is maybe not the right project for you, A.Savin. --Hubertl 13:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you also have your own opinion, or is it just because Smial said so? --A.Savin 13:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Stop arguing, you can do it on your discussion page. This is not the place for your private conflicts. --Hubertl 13:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
That's surely not your business. --A.Savin 13:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK to me. --Florstein 21:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Florstein 13:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)