Last modified on 28 August 2014, at 11:40

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]] 11:40, 28 August 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.
  • Bulleted list item

August 28, 2014Edit

August 27, 2014Edit

August 26, 2014Edit

August 25, 2014Edit

August 24, 2014Edit

August 23, 2014Edit

August 22, 2014Edit

August 21, 2014Edit

August 20, 2014Edit

August 19, 2014Edit

August 18, 2014Edit

August 17, 2014Edit

August 13, 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


Cologne Germany MediaPark-02.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: Buildings Mediapark 6 and Mediapark 7 --Cccefalon 07:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    what has happend with the area of the posters on the left? very curious pixalisation. --Taxiarchos228 07:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nothing curious - it's the design of the poster. Guggst du hier. --Cccefalon 10:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose strong pixalisation visible (see notes) --Taxiarchos228 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree --Cccefalon 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. With more of 20 megapixels of resolution, the pixelation (if there is pixelation) is minimal and should not be considered in QI IMO.--Lmbuga 11:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


Cologne Germany MediaPark-01.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: KölnTurm and Medis Park Forum --Cccefalon 07:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    the building in the foregreound is very sharp and good, but the main object (tower) isn't really. very strange. --Taxiarchos228 07:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The hyperfocal distance is about 13 m (focussing distance 100 m / f8,0 / 60 mm) ... camera mounted on tripod ... when the foreground is sharp, the background is sharp too. It is what you get from ISO 200. In my opinion sharp enough for an object in a distance of 430 m --Cccefalon 10:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose wrong focus, main object is not that sharp as is could be and should be --Taxiarchos228 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree --Cccefalon 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The sharpness of the tall tower is ok, given its distance. There is moiré, however, see note --Generic1139 14:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Reduced Moiré to a certain amount. However, this moiré pattern is also visible in reality. Removing it completly is like asking to remove the recflection of a building in a lake. Or like removing a rainbow. --Cccefalon 20:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness is ok, as well as Moiré in full resolution (in lower resolutions it is worse). --Uoaei1 09:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


Pterois volitans 400.jpg

  • Nomination Red lionfish (Pterois volitans) --Lewis Hulbert 23:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - The picture is noisy. In fact it was probably in low-light condition but 3200 iso is generally too high for QI. Waiting for other users review--Gormé 18:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Noise is acceptable for me, but there are a number of zombie pixels. Mattbuck 14:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me --Livioandronico2013 07:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - This cannot be QI for me until the zombie pixels are fixed. Mattbuck 23:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


Mallorca - Puig Major3.jpg

  • Nomination Majorca: Puig Major --Taxiarchos228 06:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too noisy and left side even blurry, definitely wrong camera settings --Poco a poco 21:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    I can denoise it, and this are definitly not the wrong cam settings, are you kiding? --Taxiarchos228 05:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    Well, blue sky, best lighting and ISO 250 due to the fact that you have choosen a shutter speed of 1/1250. What for? The subject will sure not move. Furthermore, although ISO 250 is not that high the result is a relatively noisy picture. Poco a poco 18:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Diego --Christian Ferrer 11:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:University Park MMB «K1.jpgEdit

University Park MMB «K1.jpg

  • Nomination University Park. Mattbuck 06:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 05:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With this fog is QI? --Livioandronico2013 08:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    yes fog can make very good quality images. --Christian Ferrer 17:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm sorry Christian but I don't think in this way, I don't see anything that could be called QI. --Livioandronico2013 17:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Fog is not a disqualifier for QI, and I did shoot this because of the fog rather than in spite of. Mattbuck 19:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me yes,expect others say, but I stand by my position, with the fog nothing is clear. --Livioandronico2013 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because the fog --Ralf Roletschek 08:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the for gives a mystic scene. QI for me. --Steindy 18:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Kirjastosilta, Aurajoki ja Turun tuomiokirkko, kuvattuna Itäiseltä Rantakadulta, Turku, 8.12.2013.jpgEdit

Kirjastosilta, Aurajoki ja Turun tuomiokirkko, kuvattuna Itäiseltä Rantakadulta, Turku, 8.12.2013.jpg

  • Nomination The new pedestrian bridge Kirjastosilta (Library Bridge) over the Aura River and Turun tuomiokirkko (Turku Cathedral), Turku Finland. Makele-90 20:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion You have a very difficult image to get the white balance set properly with several different color temps on the artificial light. Was the sky really that color of brown? Can you adjust the white balance? --Generic1139 21:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    The sky was dull and brownish color is from the city lights. It really looked like that, I think. This is a jpg directly from the camera. I have also RAW, but dont have program to edit it. Makele-90 07:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Such brownish sky is typical if street lighting is based mainly on sodium-vapor lamps and you have not absolutely clear sky. If you try to compensate this to get a neutral dark grey or even dark blue sky, all other colors in the image will look very strange. Reducing colour contrast can help a little bit. -- Smial 12:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    Desaturating just yellow (or yellow and orange) helps a lot. At least the sky isn't glowing apocalyptic brown, while keeping the blue of the bridge and the natural green on the top of the cathedral --Generic1139 14:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    Photographing snow at night is always hell, but this seems ok to me. Mattbuck 14:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. I have a version here that by simply reducing the saturation in yellow/orange results in a more useful image. Letting this one go by as is like accepting the wrong color temp in a tungsten image - if there is a simple fix, it should be made. What's the best way to show you this version?. Upload a new version over the original file, which can then be reverted?--Generic1139 07:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 08:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


Lörrach-Haagen - Schlossberghalle5.jpg

  • Nomination Lörrach-Haagen: Hall Schlossberg (detail) --Taxiarchos228 11:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not sharp, more so on the letters on the far left. Overexposed, much of the white on the sign and some of the sky is blown out. Magenta in the tree line on the left. --Generic1139 14:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 14:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    sorry, but the sign as main object is indeed sharp, the sky isn't blown out but white partially --Taxiarchos228 09:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Generic1139 05:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC) you already had voted --Taxiarchos228 06:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That was discussion, without the oppose tag. What counts votes, a bot, or a human? --Generic1139 21:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment to delete or to criticize the only vote that made Generic1139 It's disrespectful. Although I'm accustomed, I have to say it. It is clear that Generic1139 considers his first words a comment. Please, use {{Comment}} tag--Lmbuga 11:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:St. John in sava.jpgEdit

St. John in sava.jpg

  • Nomination St. John in sava --Livioandronico2013 12:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too bad perspective. -- XtoF 17:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    is on a column,is normal. Other opinions please. --Livioandronico2013 19:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not the best angle of view but QI to me. --P e z i 16:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp.--Jebulon 16:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC) and please, try to categorize more carefuly...
and you please try to write more carefuLLy in english....--LivioAndronico talk 23:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad detail and not sharp picture--Lmbuga 11:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


2014-08-05 10-41-15 ouvrage-g 03.jpg

  • Nomination Ghosts inside an old RADAR station, Belfort, France. --ComputerHotline 07:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Pleclown 11:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Almost all detail lost to channel overexposure. --Mattbuck 15:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Matt --Cccefalon 12:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


Chevrolet Coupe Typ AB BW 2011-09-03 13-54-37.JPG

  • Nomination Chevrolet National Serie AB Coupé --Berthold Werner 06:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion The retouched plate is a no-go for QI. Also the shadows have to be raised. The perspective needs to be fixed. Some slight magenta CA right side. All resolvable. --Cccefalon 10:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    ok. I have removed the ca and corrected the perspective. The blurred license plate is not a "no-go" for QI, there are lots of QIs with blurred license plates and in this case it was addionally wish of the organiser. --Berthold Werner 08:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, it cannot be a QI then. According to QI Guideline "Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive." --Cccefalon 19:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    Not accepted, two reason are already given. --Berthold Werner 10:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don’t think the blurred plate impairs the quality or value of this image too severely though it would have been nicer without that manipulation. Why should a blurred plate be a no-go? There’s clearly no intended deception – or who would think when viewing the image the place was really looking like this? --Kreuzschnabel 07:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I took the liberty to apply the required Retouched template. Still, this retouching is an immediate and dominant eye catcher when you open the file. Even in the thumbnal here, it attracts your attention. For me, it even fails the well-done criteria. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support : lots of pictures have already been promoted with a blurred plate (one example among them : File:Citroën DS 21 27 Quai Anatole France license plate blanked 2012-06-02 cropped.jpg). If rules needs to be changed, I think a discussion is needed too before we change.--JLPC (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @JLPC:, @Cccefalon: Just for information, I blurred the license plate on the above photo, because the car was illegally parked, and I did not want to become part of a possible issue between the police and the car owner by publishing the photo with a visible license plate. For the case above, I also think blurring the plate is reasonable mitigation from the guideline, as it was specifically requested by the organizer. --Slaunger 18:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@Slaunger:: The difference is , that your retouchement is perfectly done. --Cccefalon 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI see your point, and I also agree the removal of the license plate information could have been done more elegantly. Here it is distracting because the blurred area is completely smooth, while the surrounding parts has texture and structure. --Slaunger 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I just checked Images_with_blanked_out_license_plates. The above mentioned photo of mine is actually currently the only QI (well a version with a different crop is QI too) in that category. Of course that may be because many images, with blurred license plates are not even categorized to this category, like, for instance, the nominated picture, which I have now added to that category. --Slaunger 20:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I generally reject those photos. But I do not crosscheck every review of the buddies here. --Cccefalon 20:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Cccefalon 12:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Tayassu tajacu.jpgEdit

Tayassu tajacu.jpg

  • Nomination Collared Peccary --Chrumps 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion It is a small resolution of a comparatively big animal. Nethertheless, the full resolution does not show sufficient sharpness. --Cccefalon 04:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Picture is sharp and resolution is over 2Mpx --Jacek Halicki 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose somes areas have been overexposed --Christian Ferrer 18:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not QI for me. It is not easy to say why: Oversharpened IMO, overexposed (as Christian Ferrer), not good detail (as Cccefalon)--Lmbuga 01:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


Lörrach - Eckhaus Drei König.jpg

  • Nomination Lörrach: corner building "three kings" --Taxiarchos228 20:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overall good quality. Please remove the magenta CA at the lamp post. --Cccefalon 20:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
     Not done and loss of detail in the trees. Mattbuck 22:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    the trees are NOT main object but far in the background, your argument is really absurd --Taxiarchos228 20:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 19:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 16:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Magenta CA on the top of the lamp post.--Jebulon 16:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


Cologne Germany KölnKubus-at-Deutzer-Feld-02.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: KölnKubus at Deutzer Feld --Cccefalon 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    There is Moiré in the top fence unidentified user
    ✓ Done moiré removed --Cccefalon 20:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    A bit of posterisation and B/Y CA at the sides. Mattbuck 20:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ uploaded new version --Cccefalon 18:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, but I'm not convinced due to blur. --Mattbuck 18:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Other opinions please. --Cccefalon 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry,I see blur, especially on the left --Livioandronico2013 22:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rather ugly building, but picture good for QI IMO--Jebulon 16:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)