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]] 07:08, 19 March 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


March 19, 2024 edit

March 18, 2024 edit

March 17, 2024 edit

March 16, 2024 edit

March 15, 2024 edit

March 14, 2024 edit

March 13, 2024 edit

March 12, 2024 edit

March 11, 2024 edit

March 10, 2024 edit

March 9, 2024 edit

March 8, 2024 edit

March 7, 2024 edit

March 6, 2024 edit

March 5, 2024 edit

March 4, 2024 edit

March 2, 2024 edit

February 29, 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:March_2024_in_Seattle,_Washington,_US_-_007.jpg edit

 

File:Stolperstein_2_-_Uerdinger_Straße_25,_Golzheim,_Düsseldorf_-_Gert_&_Hans_Mayer.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Stolperstein for Gert & Hans Mayer --Reda Kerbouche 17:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose The image is too unsharp / has too few details in my opinion, sorry --PantheraLeo1359531 18:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • other options --Reda Kerbouche 19:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Did PantheraLeo1359531 actually oppose? Otherwise this should not have been moved to discussions. For me the picture is ok, given the high resolution. --Plozessor 05:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Europäische_Wildkatze_im_Wildpark_Schloss_Tambach_8.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Felis silvestris silvestris in Tambach game park --Plozessor 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 05:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose cropped feet and something in foreground --Charlesjsharp 20:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  Comment Note that QI guidelines do not say "there must be nothing in foreground" but "elements in foreground must not be disturbing". This fraction of the green fence in foreground of the green grass does not seem "disturbing" to me. But let's hear other's opinions. --Plozessor 05:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, but for me that fence is disturbing, so I have to oppose it for now. The cat has beautiful details, and I would change my vote if you made a portrait frame cropping off unnecessary sides. I don't mind the missing legs for such a portrait photo. --Jakubhal 20:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Jakubhal and Charlesjsharp: New version, please have a look. --Plozessor 05:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
      Support Thanks, OK for me --Jakubhal 05:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Decorated_Bull_at_Yanamalakuduru_Shivaratri_fest_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bull decorated for Shivaratri at Yanamalakuduru --IM3847 03:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose arm in foreground --Charlesjsharp 20:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Arm is not "in foreground" but behind the cow, seems ok for me. --Plozessor 05:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Plozessor --Jakubhal 20:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:St._Alexis_Cathedral,_Samarkand_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination St. Alexis Cathedral, Samarkand, Uzbekistan --Bgag 03:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 04:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose tight crop at top --Charlesjsharp 20:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Crop may be tight but IMO not too tight, there's nothing cut off and there's still a stripe of blue sky above the cross. I am more bothered by the lack of overall sharpness, but it's still ok. --Plozessor 05:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Interboot_2023,_Friedrichshafen_(P1120952).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination demonstration of an electric hydrofoil surfboard at Interboot 2023 --MB-one 09:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no demonstration in progress --Charlesjsharp 20:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't agree that the title is wrong but the image itself is overprocessed.--Peulle 11:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle --Jakubhal 20:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 11:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Unofficial_winner's_ceremony_SL_Soldeu_24_(3).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Women's Slalom – unofficial winner's ceremony, 3rd place: Paula Moltzan (USA), Soldeu, Andorra, 11 February 2024. --Tournasol7 05:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 05:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose misleading file name --Charlesjsharp 20:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Kruger_National_Park_(ZA),_Giraffe_--_2024_--_0064.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Giraffe, Kruger National Park, Mpumalanga, South Africa --XRay 02:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 05:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too much obscured --Charlesjsharp 20:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Then let's call it "Giraffe behind a tree" ;) Picture is good. --Plozessor 05:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good Quality, he got Battle scars too. --IM3847 09:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Kruger_National_Park_(ZA),_Meerkatze_--_2024_--_0068.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Vervet monkey on a tree, Kruger National Park, Mpumalanga, South Africa --XRay 02:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose blurred and we cannot see the head --Charlesjsharp 20:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Per Charlesjsharp, seems not focused on the animal. --Plozessor 05:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, not sharp enough --Jakubhal 20:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_Basking_posture_of_Symphaedra_nais_(Forster,_1771)_-_Baronet_WLB_IMG_3604a.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Open wing Basking posture of Symphaedra nais (Forster, 1771) - Baronet --Sandipoutsider 02:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose little definition --Charlesjsharp 20:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Бесідка._Ставок.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A pond in the village of Besidka --Nikride 08:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Lacks sharpness, sorry, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 20:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Sharpness is enough --Nikride 11:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Sufficient sharpness IMO. --Plozessor 05:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 08:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The focus is on the grass in the foreground. The forest in the background, which is most prominent in the photo, is indeed, in my opinion, too soft. Also, there is a minor perspective distortion. --Jakubhal 13:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

File:"Museum_Sorgdrager"_Oosterlaan_31,_Hollum_(Ameland).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination "Museum Sorgdrager" Oosterlaan 31, Hollum (Ameland). --JoachimKohler-HB 10:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Green CA visible, particularly on the left side of the roof, fixable? --Mike Peel 09:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Mike Peel, CA at the left side of the building and in the treetops. Otherwise ok. --Plozessor 05:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Glyderau_o_Pen_yr_Helgi_Du.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The Glyderau range from Pen yr Helgi Du. By User:Erwynj
      Support Good quality. --Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)   Comment Reset to nomination since User:Llywelyn2000 is the nominator. --Milseburg 11:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 09:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose It's a very good image, but not a good image to illustrate the mountain range (fog, distracting foreground). Could be promoted with a different description. --MB-one 09:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Tribu_Laarim,_Kimotong,_Sudán_del_Sur,_2024-01-24,_DD_109.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Laarim Tribe, Kimotong, South Sudan --Poco a poco 20:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  Oppose It looks quite noisy to me, which leads to odd edge effects, see the shoulders for example. --Mike Peel 08:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
True, something went wrong here.   New version Poco a poco 23:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The new version looks much better, but still noise issues, e.g., on the arm on the right of the photo, and the belly. Thanks. Mike Peel 09:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but it has very strange effects (varying noise patters and halos) around the shoulders, the hair and elsewhere. Maybe it was (poorly) processed by AI? Clearly not a QI IMO, and I don't think that the current version can be edited to fix it. Maybe start a new raw conversion from scratch. --Plozessor 06:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Mike Peel and Plozessor: there is a new version...Poco a poco 12:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Better now, but at full resolution it seems to suffer from motion blur, at 2.5 MB it looks ok though. I still don't support it, but it's good enough to remove my opposing vote. Let's see what others say. --Plozessor 13:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support It's good for me now, thanks for iterating on this. Thanks. Mike Peel 14:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel 09:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Lucha_entre_clanes_de_la_tribu_Mundari,_Terekeka,_Sudán_del_Sur,_2024-01-29,_DD_112.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Wrestling of different clans of the Mundari tribe, Terekeka, South Sudan --Poco a poco 20:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Sorry, but nothing is really sharp. --Alexander-93 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Please, let's discuss, I've uploaded a new version which deserves the stamp IMHO --Poco a poco 23:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support New version is ok. Hair is a bit blurry but it's not noticeable in downscaled versions. --Plozessor 05:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support new version, which looks better than the original one. Thanks. Mike Peel 09:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Jakubhal 13:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jakubhal 13:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Lupinus_arboreus_A74111920240108.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lupinus arboreus. --Rjcastillo 00:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --PaestumPaestum 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree. Unfortunately, at least the lower whorl of flowers is out of focus, the upper one looks very soft and there might be some overexposed spots. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
      Comment(both) Thanks for reviews. it adjusted a little. --Rjcastillo 01:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)