Last modified on 31 July 2014, at 16:04

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list


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]] 16:04, 31 July 2014 (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.

July 31, 2014Edit

July 30, 2014Edit

July 29, 2014Edit

July 28, 2014Edit

July 27, 2014Edit

July 26, 2014Edit

July 25, 2014Edit

July 24, 2014Edit

July 23, 2014Edit

July 22, 2014Edit

July 21, 2014Edit

July 20, 2014Edit

July 19, 2014Edit

July 12, 2014Edit

July 7, 2014Edit

Consensual reviewEdit


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 ReviewEdit

File:Friese ballonfeesten in Joure 02.JPGEdit

Friese ballonfeesten in Joure 02.JPG

  • Nomination Hot Air Balloon Festival in Joure province of Friesland in the Netherlands.
    Famberhorst 05:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Can you reduce the magenta fringe? --Cccefalon 05:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Correction
    Famberhorst 06:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Good quality. --Cccefalon 06:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    The sky's rather cyan don't you think? --Mattbuck 07:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is very acceptable. Not worse than your magentaish sky's, Matt. --Cccefalon 07:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support The 17:01 version solves all of the above problems. --Generic1139 15:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


Lüdinghausen, Flugplatz Borkenberge -- 2014 -- 1114.jpg

  • Nomination Air field Borkenberge near Lüdinghausen, Germany --XRay 10:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sincerely I don't understand what sense this picture makes, maybe it needs a better description?--Moroder 19:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion ✓ Fixed Thanks. I've added "speakers ..." to the description.--XRay 05:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Good quality. --Moroder 16:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think the speakers (main subject) are too dark. --El Grafo 08:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Thanks. It's fixed now.--XRay 17:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Generic1139 15:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)



  • Nomination Bay of Ocean City, Maryland (USA) --Démosthène 02:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Tilted ccw. Magenta CA. At least 2 disturbances in the sky (see notes). All fixable. --Cccefalon 06:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New file uploaded. I hope it's better now but feel free to reverse. --JLPC 21:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Now it looks ok to me. --Stegop 13:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - dust spot to the right of the plane. Mattbuck 20:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

File:University of East London MMB 03 Royal Albert Dock.jpgEdit

University of East London MMB 03 Royal Albert Dock.jpg

  • Nomination Royal Albert Dock. Mattbuck 06:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Non-existent subject, negligible EV. Yerpo 14:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Not a reason to decline at quality images. --Mattbuck 23:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes it is, see Commons:Image guidelines#Quality and featured photographic images. Even without this formality, the photo is extremely average, not sure what quality it's supposed to have. Sorry. --Yerpo 07:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The subject here is water. I dont think the photograph shows water in a good way. Neither weather, choice of lens, or the choice of angle is adequate for the purpose. There are strong reflections, limited DOF and perspective distortion (partially because of the choice of angle, especially the upper right corner that is furthest away from the camera). I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but to me it seems to be random snapshot. --ArildV 08:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with comments above. --Iifar 10:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per ArildV. --Lewis Hulbert 15:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Rode zonnehoed (Echinacea purpurea).JPGEdit

Rode zonnehoed (Echinacea purpurea).JPG

  • Nomination Echinacea purpurea.
    Famberhorst 15:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Background a bit noisy, but QI overall --Poco a poco 18:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, In my opinion the background and the edges spoils the picture: Artifacts, noise, too sharpened IMO--Lmbuga 18:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO the photo is oversharpened, especially the background and edges. --Tuxyso 11:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Paris, Litfasssäule -- 2014 -- 1169.jpg

  • Nomination Advertising column, Paris, France --XRay 07:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO it's QI. --Stegop 20:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    You should promote it then.
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I oppose because a) the lower part of the column is invisible, b) the flat background is disturbing (why not take the pic from the right or left side to gain some depth from central perspective?), and c) top side crop is too tight. Move to CR. --Kreuzschnabel 09:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I understand Kreuzschnabel's argument but it is imho no QI concern here. The column is well places between the two white window shutters. --Tuxyso 11:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


Balung Tawau Sabah Sawit-Kinabalu-Seeds-Sdn-Bhd-02.jpg

  • Nomination Entrance to the Seed Production Unit of Sawit Kinabalu Seeds Sdn Bhd in Kg Balung, Sabah --Cccefalon 11:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Imo the top background nedds to be generously cropped because it is distracting, even if blurred --Moroder 14:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is intentionally, to see the SAWIT logo in the background. Cropping would destroy the logo as well as the compo. --Cccefalon 21:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Than the logo in the back shöuldn't be blurred --Moroder 12:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Bad clipping top right. Mattbuck 18:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    Dear Mattbuck I already asked you at other occasions not to decline for reason of minor issues which are absolutely easy to fix. The missing constraint operation can be done easily. --Cccefalon 08:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) and is ✓ Done now --Cccefalon 17:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion

File:Statua Giuseppe Mazzini aventino.jpgEdit

Statua Giuseppe Mazzini aventino.jpg

File:Hydrangea macrophylla 005.JPGEdit

Hydrangea macrophylla 005.JPG

  • Nomination Hydrangea macrophylla, with flattened umbels.
    Famberhorst 15:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too processed (see note as example)--Lmbuga 19:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that the shadow of the large leaves.
    Famberhorst 04:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps I'm not right: "Discuss" is better--Lmbuga 19:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At first sight it is very good, but looking carefully at the full resolution I find the DOF inadequate, as only some parts of the pethals are sharp - IMO some of the centres should be sharp. --Stegop 13:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

File: Adansonia digitata_arbre_MHNT.jpgEdit

Adansonia digitata arbre MHNT.jpg

  • Nomination , arbre of Baobab - arbre de Baobab --Ercé 13:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A little bit more contrast wouldn't hurt and that sky is kind of dull, but since I suspect that it is very realistic, maybe it is QI. --Stegop 00:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version. --Ercé 11:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA, strange colours, blurry bottom. Mattbuck 16:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done OK ! New new version. --Ercé 13:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok good now --Archaeodontosaurus 14:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Stegop 23:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


Club Alpino Italiano sign at the Langkofelhütte.jpg

  • Nomination Club Alpino Italiano sign at the Langkofelhütte in Val Gardena --Moroder 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Corners of the plaque are blurred. --Mattbuck 17:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree, sensless review --Moroder 22:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have a look at the rock above the eagle, around the rusty dots. There’s definitely motion blur visible, resulting either from earthquake or camera shake. (I reckon that’s the price of high resolution.) --Kreuzschnabel 11:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It must be me with Parkinson's even at shutter speed 1/500 --Moroder 14:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


Male Ruby-Throated Hummingbird Hovering.jpg

  • Nomination Male Ruby-Throated Hummingbird --Pslawinski 21:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion {{s|weak support}} It's a picture hard to take, but I know your other exceptional picture. It's not a photo as good as another, but QI IMO--Lmbuga 00:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    It is too dark. Can you please brighten it? At least the background, so there's contrast. Once it's updated, I'll support. --Kadellar 12:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm agree with Kadellar--Lmbuga 20:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support For me it is ok! But I agree that a higher contrast to the background would improve it. --Uoaei1 06:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


Cova e xistos na praia de Augas Santas ou das Catedrais. Devesa. Ribadeo. Galiza-13.jpg

  • Nomination Cave and schist. Beach of Augas Santas or beach of the Cathedrals, Devesa, Ribadeo, Galicia (Spain)-13 --Lmbuga 00:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, "discuss": I want to konw the problem of this image: 5,616 × 3,744 pixels.
  • Discussion

File:Kirche Bruchenbrücken (1).jpgEdit

Kirche Bruchenbrücken (1).jpg

  • Nomination Church in Bruchenbrücken --Hydro 18:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Needs perspective correction. Perhaps you can apply a crop that is avoiding the part of a roof at the right side. --Cccefalon 20:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    •  Not done Mattbuck 16:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I removed the part of the roof but don't see a need of perspective correction. --Hydro 17:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Perspective distortion fixed, vertical lines were clearly converging. --Kreuzschnabel 11:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Vientiane - Wat Chan - 0011.jpgEdit

Vientiane - Wat Chan - 0011.jpg

  • Nomination Prayer hall at Wat Chan, Vientiane, Laos -- DerFussi 21:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavy noise reduction caused much loss of details. There are also strange halos in the image. There may be perspective problems too. Wrongly processed, otherwise a very nice image. --Joydeep 16:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI should not work at night after a bottle of wine... It was the Smart Sharpen Filter in Photoshop, that apllied a heavy noise reduction partly, not the processing - unfortunately not at the spots I checked. Normally I am not a fan of heavy noise reduction. Do I have any chance with a re-upload? Are there perspective problems or not? Can you give me a hint where? I used some guide lines to check it. -- DerFussi 17:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    You can surely reupload another version of this file. Sharper version would be very good. There are minor perspective issues, I have made some annotations. --Joydeep 19:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    I've checked the perspective issues. Look at my screenshots [1],[2] and [3]. Thats very slighty. Maybe 1,5px on the left side, if you look at 300%. OK. I'll kick the smart sharpen filter and rework it tonight. Upload a new one anyway and will decide whether its good enough - and never work at late night. Thanks. -- DerFussi 04:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)✓ Done reworked -- DerFussi 20:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are several optical illusions working against you here, the curved item over the central peak, the central columns get narrower as they go up, the wires crossing at an angle, and the left front wall's horizontal tilts, even though the vertical there is mostly vertical. Sharpness is improved, though. --Generic1139 21:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, it is a bit tricky. If I wanted to put it on my wall here, I would retouch it and remove all wires, but I lack in time. The QI is not a must have. I consider it as a part of a learning process, not as a contest. :) Thanks for the comments. -- DerFussi 08:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Ascensor del Monte San Pedro.La Coruña.005.JPGEdit

Ascensor del Monte San Pedro.La Coruña.005.JPG

  • Nomination Elevator in San Pedro's Mount, in Corunna, Spain. --Drow male 13:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See note: Red and cyan CAs. Overxposed areas? If you fix the CAs, it's good for me--Lmbuga 14:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you can't fix the chromatic aberrations, I can fix CAs, but I don't have the RAW file--Lmbuga 15:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    *✓ Done by me. New version: Discuss--Lmbuga 01:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI now imo --Lewis Hulbert 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


Mallorca - Cap Figuera2.jpg

  • Nomination Figuera Bay, Majorca --Taxiarchos228 06:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --JLPC 14:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Nice, but there are areas with good contrast and clarity bordering areas with low contrast and clarity (see note). The horizon is a bit tilted--Lmbuga 17:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Lmbuga: the horizon is straight now, but the different contrasts are result of different angle of the plants and is not a fault auf my or the camera. There are also more of those areas with different contrast, but this is absolutley natural. --Taxiarchos228 19:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not agree, sorry--Lmbuga 21:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
if you agree or not, that are the facts. --Taxiarchos228 07:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good for QI, the contrast is naturally. --Ralf Roletschek 07:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Vientiane - Wat Chan - 0001.jpgEdit

Vientiane - Wat Chan - 0001.jpg

  • Nomination The meeting and prayer room of Wat Chan, Vientiane -- DerFussi 19:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Cayambe 11:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It looks wee tilted to the right (0.001 deg? :), which wouldn't be ok if the angled POV and the natural inclination of the trees didn't increase the tilt appearance. Otherwise it is great, despite the dull sky which can't be changed. --Stegop 23:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Nationalpark Jasmund - Insel Rügen.jpg

  • Nomination Chalk cliffs of Rügen, Jasmund National Park, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany. By User:Hrauk --Frank Schulenburg 14:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Composition and lighting (sky, contrast, colours)) --Steinsplitter 14:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything with the composition or colours, but the low levels need brightening. Mattbuck 07:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Somewhat oversharpened and small compression artifacts. @Mattbuck: Yes, the dark side of the tree ;-) is a bit too dark and shows no detail, but thats at the margin and imho not really an issue. Lacking geo coordinates. -- Smial 11:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me --DKrieger 15:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Merfeld, Wildpferdefang -- 2014 -- 0798.jpg

  • Nomination Capturing the yearlings: Wildpferdefang 2014, Merfelder Bruch, Dülmen, Germany --XRay 05:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Red channel overexposure. --Mattbuck 09:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Red channel is improved.--XRay 06:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Severe problems with composition (the head is hidden and it's impossible to see what the middle guy is doing. Also hard to see value of this photo among the other better images of the same happening. --Averater (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Merfeld, Wildpferdefang, Vorprogramm -- 2014 -- 0499.jpg

  • Nomination Preliminary Program (unknown actor); Wildpferdefang 2014, Merfelder Bruch, Dülmen, Germany --XRay 05:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Red channel blown on jacket. --Kreuzschnabel 14:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Red channel is now improved. It's better. Thanks for your advice.--XRay 06:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, much better. Generic1139 16:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'.JPGEdit

Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'.JPG

  • Nomination Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'. Chamomile.
    Famberhorst 15:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion At first sight it is good, but looking carefully, I think that the DOF should cover the center of the flower and not only the foreground. Sorry, I imagine how difficult it can be shooting this kind of photo. --Stegop 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Have to disagree with Stegop. Think focus is well chosen. Object well represented and sharp. --Klaproth 23:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DoF a bit small indeed, but acceptable here IMO --Christian Ferrer 10:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Essential parts are sharp enough. -- Smial 21:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting background, especially the flower to the left. --Averater 07:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Averater and poor DOF--Lmbuga 02:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Neo-Riemannian Tonnetz.svgEdit

Neo-Riemannian Tonnetz.svg

  • Nomination The Neo-Riemannian Tonnetz, showing relations between triads --Mate2code 02:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • A useful image, however, the small annotations denoting secondary operations are too small to read except at higher res. Can you make them a larger font, or a darker grey?--Generic1139 12:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done The gray letters are now readable on the description page. In my opinion only the letters N, S and H need to be readable from articles, the gray letters are just auxiliary information. Mate2code 12:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Generic1139 16:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Christian Ferrer 05:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Burgruine Hohenegg 8666.jpgEdit

Burgruine Hohenegg 8666.jpg

  • Nomination Burgruine Hohenegg, Austria --Hamster28 13:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Too much softening (fine details in the wall structure are extinguished). Magenta CA bottom right. --Cccefalon 13:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness and colours look just right to me. --Stegop 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe softened details look nice, like a kind of drawing. Was it intentionally? As an artwork? Then describe it on the description page, and I give a "pro". If not and it should be a "normal" photo, I agree Cccefalon. -- DerFussi 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too processed, perhaps Featured picture, but not Quality Image IMO--Lmbuga 02:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too much noise reduction --Christian Ferrer 05:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Christian Ferrer 05:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)