Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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]] 16:00, 9 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 how you are doing).


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 3, 2024 edit

May 2, 2024 edit

May 1, 2024 edit

April 30, 2024 edit

April 29, 2024 edit

April 28, 2024 edit

April 27, 2024 edit

April 26, 2024 edit

April 24, 2024 edit

April 23, 2024 edit

April 22, 2024 edit

April 20, 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:2018-06-02_01_ARKLOW_FAITH_-_IMO_9361718.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Cargo ship, Arklow Faith, leaving the harbor at Aberdeen, Scotland. --GRDN711 14:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose I'm sorry. Sky is overexposed. --Nacaru 22:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
      Comment @Nacaru: If you go to the upload page and see the image against the white page background, you will see that while it is an overcast day in Scotland, there is tone in the clouds and all of the sky. My histogram of this image is balanced and does not show any blown highlights or too dark tones. Please take another look. --GRDN711 23:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    Alright, I'll move it to discussion to see what others think. --Nacaru 23:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

File:IBM_AS400_Keyboard.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination IBM AS400 Keyboard --Wilfredor 15:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion <
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I disagree. Needs perspective correction, right side angle is much starker than the one on left side. --Nacaru 22:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Also the AS/400 does not have a keyboard. This device must belong to a Twinax terminal, such as IBM 5250, not to the AS/400 (or "IBM iSeries") as such. Would be good to have the actual model number of the keyboard in the description. --Plozessor 10:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Question This image is already a QI? --Smial 10:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Poco a poco, Nacaru, Plozessor, and Smial: As Smial says above, this is already a QI. I had a look at how this could have happened, and it seems that QICbot (talk · contribs) never removed the archived nominations on the morning of 7 May as it usually does. It did all the rest of the steps, including creating the archive page for that day, tagging all the images and notifying the creators/nominators, but for whatever reason (edit conflict?) didn't remove them from the candidate list. Nacaru (talk · contribs) then opposed the image later on the same day which changed the template to /Discuss. When QICbot ran on the morning of 8 May it moved the image down to this section despite the fact it had already been promoted 24 hours earlier. As far as I know there is no current process to delist QIs so not sure what to do here, interested to hear views. BigDom 10:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_061.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Relief of Madonna & The Magi at the Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork --Scotch Mist 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Comment I don't think it's sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 15:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    Another perspective? --Scotch Mist 22:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_112.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination River View of St Mary's Church, High Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork (Lightened Shadows!) --Scotch Mist 06:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    IMHO, it is better with the darker shadows. --C messier 16:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    Another perspective? --Scotch Mist 13:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

File:EBACE_2023,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(EB237703).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lavatory aboard a Pilatus PC-12 at EBACE 2023 --MB-one 22:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   OpposeI'm sorry, but I disagree. The blurry element at the top is a bit strange. --Nacaru 23:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Nacaru:   Done cloned out this imperfection. Thanks for the review. --MB-one 19:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Fixed, although I have to say the top foremost cropping of the right white wall is unfortunate. Nacaru 22:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 15:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

File:022_Wild_Alpine_Ibex_Grammont_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Wild alpine ibex massive mountains at Grammont --Giles Laurent 01:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose Not sharp. --Tagooty 02:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
    The subject is the ibex and it was in focus and sharp enough in my opinion. Anyway, I just uploaded a new file with sharpened ibex. What do you think now Tagooty ? --Giles Laurent 11:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with Tagooty above. Still not sharp enough. --SHB2000 13:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Done New sharpened version uploaded. Press Ctrl+F5 with image open at full resolution on Windows or Cmd+R on Mac to update cache and see the new version. What do you think now Tagooty and SHB2000 ? --Giles Laurent 09:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Indeed, it's not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 14:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    Could you please elaborate what you consider is not sharp in the ibex @Sebring12Hrs? At such distance it is normal to not see every single hair of the animal, especially when the sun has already set and I think that even in these circumstances a sufficient enough amount of hair detail can be seen in this picture --Giles Laurent 18:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    The animal is sharp, but it is such a small part of the image that we expect better sharpness either of the foreground or the background. Yann 18:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your precision Yann. The thing is that at f2.8 (needed because of low light) and 104mm it is impossible to not have bokeh. In this case I think the subject of the image is the ibex and that the bokeh actually highlights the subject by separating it from the background. But I can understand that the subject beeing small, some people could be disturbed. But the fact of having the subject small was deliberate as the image was intended to showcase the animal in its habitat that is still very visible and distinguishable in my opinion. --Giles Laurent 18:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Undecided. The ibex is perfectly sharp and the bokeh is fine. However, for the ibex to be the subject (as outlined above), it makes up a quite small portion of the image. Resolution would be high enough to crop it a bit tighter around the animal though. --Plozessor 13:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your review Plozessor. I could crop a bit the bottom of the picture if you think it would make it better but I'd like to keep the top of the mountains as they well represent the environment of the animal (I would like to avoid a crop like this one because the goal of the present picture is to show the animal surroundings). So do you think it would be better if I crop more the bottom of the picture Plozessor? (I'm just afraid that if I do so the subject would be too much lost on the bottom edge of the image instead of being at the 1/3 ratio) -- Giles Laurent 15:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The revisions have not brought any real improvement. The animal is simply too small and it doesn't work as a landscape photo either due to the lack of DOF. --Smial 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Mini_Hatch_(J01)_IMG_8799.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mini Hatch (J01) in Böblingen --Alexander-93 07:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 08:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. The car is very crowded. In addition, the transition between the roof and the light car in the background is barely visible. Incidentally, I find the license plate holder without a license plate unsightly. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Not a FP but good quality also regarding the conditions. --Milseburg (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distracting background. --Kallerna 09:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Velden_Selpritsch_Kirchenweg_Filialkirche_hl._Andreas_Christophorus_20042024_4899.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Painting of Saint Christopher at the subsidiary church Saint Andrew on Kirchenweg in Selpritsch, Velden, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 01:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, it has good composition, but the top shadow kinda ruins it for me --Nacaru 23:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The shadow is too disturbing for QI. -- Spurzem 12:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Nacaru and Spurzem. You could try with different RAW conversion settings (like increasing clarity and dynamics while reducing contrast) to reduce the extreme contrast between the bright and the dark part, but not sure if that would be enough. --Plozessor 04:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Such a composition could work if the gutter or the roof casting the shadow were visible in the picture. The way the object is shown here, the lighting is not suitable. Better to wait for a day when there is no direct sunlight. --Smial 15:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 10:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Beijing_city_subway_passage.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A photo showing a dark passage within the Beijing Subway during the Chinese new year celebrations --Nacaru 11:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose The picture is too dark and I think you need to straighten it. --Shougissime 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Is the pic too dark or is that just what the environment looks like? That's an important distinction to make. --ReneeWrites 19:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The place was unusually dark for a metro corridor, it's why I took a picture of it. Also I cropped it a little on the left side to avoid having part of a wall poster on the frame. --Nacaru 21:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Opposing for now because it needs perspective correction (left side is leaning in, right side is straight). Brightness is ok. Shadows are a bit noisy, IMO still acceptable for the situation but maybe a bit stronger (chroma) noise reduction would further improve the image. --Plozessor 04:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good now.
  •   Done. @Plozessor and Shougissime: , perspective has been corrected and I have made it less dark. Nacaru 11:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good to me. ReneeWrites 23:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Castello_di_Salorno_by_drone_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Drone shot of Haderburg, Salorno, Italy--Syrio 09:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Nacaru 11:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. I think the image is a little bit to dark for QI. But I am not sure. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm agree with the comment above. If you can correct the darkness of the background, I think it could be a QI. --Shougissime 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not great at color correction but I've tried; is it enough? --Syrio 16:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Spurzem --Nikride 13:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good composition but it's still a bit dark and not very sharp. I don't think it's possible to improve it. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 14:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem and Shougissime: I have tried to correct the color. --Syrio 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting, but lower left part is too dark. --Milseburg 15:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 15:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)