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]] 01:31, 22 May 2024 (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
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


May 22, 2024[edit]

May 21, 2024[edit]

May 20, 2024[edit]

May 19, 2024[edit]

May 18, 2024[edit]

May 17, 2024[edit]

May 16, 2024[edit]

May 15, 2024[edit]

May 14, 2024[edit]

May 13, 2024[edit]

May 12, 2024[edit]

May 11, 2024[edit]

May 10, 2024[edit]

May 9, 2024[edit]

May 8, 2024[edit]

May 7, 2024[edit]

May 6, 2024[edit]

May 5, 2024[edit]

May 4, 2024[edit]

May 1, 2024[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  Oppose and  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".



File:Bupleurum_stellatum_2_RF.jpg[edit]

  •  Comment I can see a single umbel that is clearly blurry. An attempt to correct this would be very unwise and presumably result in overprocessing. If this is "a large part", then this is probably not a QI. Are there any other opinions? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 20:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Łódź_2023_42.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Łódź Palace Tower Garden View --Scotch Mist 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 07:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image seems a bit underexpoded, especially the western side of the tower. Pleas discuss about QI. -- Spurzem 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem, also not ideal composition and perspective. --Plozessor 13:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Plozessor: Am not sure that the image is significantly underexposed, but with regard to the composition and perspective does this appear "fixable" without removing interesting detail? --Scotch Mist 13:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Shadows and exposure leves are OK to me. It needs PC, though. Nacaru 19:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Боровое._Большое_Чебачье_озеро.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Gulf of Naples on the Great Chebachy Lake, view from one of the rocks on the shore. Burabay national park. Burabay district Akmola region, Kazakhstan. By User:Евгений Емельянов --Красный 03:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise and not enough sharp for a QI. --Remontees 17:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Just over 6 MPixels is a bit low for a landscape shot of this type these days, I find little remnants of CA and the sharpness could be a bit better. But it's enough for a decent A4-size print, and I really have nothing to complain about in terms of colour, lighting and composition. --Smial 20:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Egret_Flight_Reflection_Dawn_Harangi_Apr24_D72_26682.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Medium egret (Ardea intermedia) in flight over Harangi Reservoir early morning, Suntikoppa, Coorg --Tagooty 00:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Amazing composition, but I'm afraid, the main subject doesn't show enough detail --MB-one 11:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Given the dawn lighting and motion, let's hear other opinions. --Tagooty 03:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately I have to agree with MB-one. The bird has very little detail and isn't really sharp. --Plozessor 13:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The very special lighting makes the photo appear blurrier than it is. Yes, you can definitely see weaknesses, especially on the bird's head. Overall, however, I think it's enough for a usable A4-size printout. --Smial 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Per Smial --GoldenArtists (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Lyon_6e_-_Parc_de_la_Tête_d'Or_-_Statue_de_Bernard_de_Jussieu_-_Côté_droit.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statue de Bernard de Jussieu --Romainbehar 15:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 11:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is good but neither hands nor face are visible here, and this is important when depicting a statue. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 03:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support "Côté_droit" in french is "right side" in english. Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 11:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Is it not legitimate to take pictures from all sides? User also took a picture from the front, but this one shows the side of the statue. --Plozessor 13:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This side view confuses me a little. But OK, thanks for the clarification. -- Екатерина Борисова 14:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Nagcha_of_Feija_National_Park.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Nagcha of Feija National Park picture Captured from Aïn Techia while sunset. By User:Bill.pix --TOUMOU 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Remontees 21:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The white balance seems off. Colors during sunset are usually very warm; here, everything is greenish. --Jakubhal 03:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Color balance is clearly off (the sky doesn't look green during sunset). Also, there's practically no detail, basically each mountain is just a green color gradient (but that's clearly a minor issue compared to the color). --Plozessor 09:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the color is an acceptable artistic choice. It's a beautiful image and well framed. --Valereee 13:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • QI is not about art. A picture of sunset that was originally yellow and on the picture is green may be an "artistic" work but IMO not a QI in our sense. --Plozessor 16:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unnatural WB, looks also downsized regarding the camera used. --Milseburg (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC))

File:Close_wing_pudding_position_of_Ochlodes_brahma_(Moore,_1878)_-_Grey-branded_Darter_IMG_0531.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing pudding position of Ochlodes brahma (Moore, 1878) - Grey-branded Darter. By User:Thamblyok --Atudu 08:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not a QI to me, sorry, it lacks detail --Poco a poco 12:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support I disagree, the focus plan is well chosen but if you wan all the animal focused, you need to use focus stacking techniques. --Remontees 21:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Majority of the insect is OOF, and the sharp parts seem random. --Plozessor 09:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support For subjects that are difficult to photograph, we allow that images only need to have at least two Mpixels, which is already very little for a decent printout in A4 size. This one has over 14 Mpixels and is good enough at a normal viewing distance. I also notice positively that there are no oversharpening or denoising artifacts. Yes, a little more depth of field would have been better to be able to see a few more details around the eyes. --Smial 12:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Difficult to photograph. --Valereee 13:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor --Jakubhal 13:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Nacaru 19:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Ναός_Εισοδίων_της_Θεοτόκου_στο_Θίτι_DJI_0180.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Top down view of the church of Eisodia Theotokou in Thiti, Attica. --C messier 19:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not an acceptable composition for a QI. --Remontees 22:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The shadows are a little dark, but the quality is good and top down views are useful. -- Екатерина Борисова 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Unfortunate lighting and too dark shadows. Thats no QI for me. -- Spurzem 20:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Nacaru 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Looking_up_the_Liaison_slope_towards_Sommet_des_Rousses,_La_Thuile,_2024.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La Thuile ski area, Italy --DimiTalen 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Seems quite blurred --Remontees 23:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This should not be here in CR, it has no votes for or against. Please don't send nominations straight to discussion without casting a vote. BigDom 08:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed. But as it is here now, voting against because it really is blurry. --Plozessor 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:2024_Hotel_i_restauracja_Śnieżnik_w_Kłodzku_(2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Śnieżnik hotel and restaurant in Kłodzko 2 --Jacek Halicki 01:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Name sign is blurry, perhaps camera shake? --Tagooty 02:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looking sharp to me. Maybe @Tagooty: your browser didn't load the image fully? --Plozessor 06:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks fine to me too. BigDom 02:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 06:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 08:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Церква_Макіївка.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saints Peter and Paul church, Makiivka. Created by Олександр Олександрович Павленко. --Lystopad 16:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Nikride 20:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO overprocessed, there is a bright halo between the building and the sky. --C messier 13:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Overcontrasted (probably increased clarity and dynamics without decreasing contrast). Should not be hard to fix with better raw conversion though. --Plozessor 06:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed as is, but agree with Plozessor that it should be fixable. BigDom 02:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 08:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Rippel_im_Sand_am_Strand_Norderneys_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination ripple marks at the beach of Norderney at sunset --Stephan Sprinz 19:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Zinnmann 10:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slight tilted. I'm not convinced by the sharpness and the presentation of the sun. Looks oversaturated. --Milseburg 15:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 10:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Cat_in_Piran,_Slovenia,_20240504_1659_8682.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cat in Piran, Slovenia --Jakubhal 05:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Photographing black cats is difficult; I know from experience. Here you can see almost no difference between the animal's snout and chest. The sharpness should also be better. For me the photo is not a quality image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: Underexposure  Underexposed and insufficient DoF --F. Riedelio 06:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment The cat has sharp eyes, and in most cases I've seen here, that was sufficient for a QI. --Jakubhal 19:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per F. Riedelio --Plozessor 06:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment @Spurzem: @F. Riedelio: @Plozessor: - I brightened the photo Jakubhal 19:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 08:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Government_office_in_The_Hague_housing_the_Dutch_Ministry_of_Justice_and_Security_(2019).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Government office housing the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security, The Hague, Netherlands --S. Perquin 18:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Unsharp, sorry. --Kallerna 11:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Picture is sharp enough. Great composition too. --Nacaru 08:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Picture is sharp, but overexposed a bit. Maybe lights correction can help? Красный 22:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Great composition and lighting, good quality for a smartphone, can't see any overexposed areas --Julesvernex2 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks like the lens is a little foggy in the middle. --Milseburg 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Škoda_Superb_IV_Combi_IMG_9982.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Škoda Superb IV Combi in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 16:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the reflections in the windshield at all. In addition, the car is very crowded and the cut is unnecessarily narrow. Please discuss whether this photo is really a QI. -- Spurzem 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 12:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support shiny objects reflect lights. That's not a photographic defect. One could argue that the crop is quite narrow, but that's still a matter of taste. Overall good quality. --MB-one 08:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. --Plozessor 04:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 08:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Window pediment of Palace of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. Znamenka estate, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Somewhat tight crop, and somewhat noisy, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 10:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Either some colleagues have problems with connection, so image is uploading badly or are being too strict. This photo is enough sharp to illustrate articles even in larger sizes. Красный 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough, given the high resolution. --Plozessor 04:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think the detail level is high enough. Possibly explained by the fact that this is a small compact camera.--Peulle 08:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, while I think the level of detail is borderline high enough, I think it needs better composition. Bottom right side touches the edge while bottom left doesn't, top-left side shows the corner while top-right doesn't. Nacaru 00:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Large image of small carvings, sharp enough. --Tagooty 03:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Tagooty 03:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)