Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

< Commons:Quality images candidates


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]] 11:47, 21 January 2017 (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.

January 21, 2017Edit

January 20, 2017Edit

January 19, 2017Edit

January 18, 2017Edit

January 17, 2017Edit

January 16, 2017Edit

January 15, 2017Edit

January 14, 2017Edit

January 12, 2017Edit

January 9, 2017Edit

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   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".

Consensual ReviewEdit



  • Nomination roses House, Avenida Paulista, Brazil --The Photographer 18:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion Nice compositional idea, quality is acceptable to me. -- Ikan Kekek 22:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    The strong noise should be removed IMO --Ermell 22:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Battery charger for RC use --Lucasbosch 19:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   OpposeInsufficient quality.not sharp sorry --Cvmontuy 19:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportI disagree. Probablby somewhat low DOF, but in all other aspects very good quality. --Smial 10:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Battery charger for RC use --Lucasbosch 19:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   OpposeInsufficient quality. bad crop sorry --Cvmontuy 19:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportI disagree. Obvisiously intended composition. --Smial 10:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Old tramway in Laon --Billy69150 12:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 16:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image can't get the promotion before perspective coorection. See the left side of the image, all vertical lines leans to the right. Please fix that --Halavar 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as Halavar -- DerFussi 19:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --DerFussi 19:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination No Parking Sign at a door in Bagni di Lucca, Italy --Kritzolina 10:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Beautiful photograph, good quality. --Slashme 12:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now - please fix chromatic aberrations first. --A.Savin 18:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --A.Savin 15:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Prague 07-2016 View from Powder Tower img3.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Prague: view from Powder Tower towards Old Town --A.Savin 18:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The photo in general is quite good, but please talk about the pronounced slant in the road on either side of the block in the foreground. It gives this viewer a very strange feeling. If the slants are accurate, this photo should be promoted right away. -- Ikan Kekek 13:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
      Comment I didn't quite well understand what's the problem, Maybe you mean the uw-angle distortion, then you're probably right and I cannot do much about it... --A.Savin 17:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
To clarify: The road on the left of the building slants pretty drastically down to the left, and the road on the right of the building slants pretty drastically down to the right. If the roads are in fact level or nearly level, widthwise, I find that distortion too great and distracting to want to promote this picture, but I'd be happy to open it up to consideration at CR. -- Ikan Kekek 19:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose have to agree that the slants in the roads are very distracting from the image overall and too much for me to see a QI in this but CR is always there if you disagree. EoRdE6 06:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree Tons of images with compulsively straightened verticals have been promoted here on com:qic as long as the camera looked upward. Now we have exactly the same effect, but the camera looked downward. Yes, this is ugly in my opinion, but it is not worse than many promoted church towers. --Smial 18:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my remarks above and EoRdE6. -- Ikan Kekek 21:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I absolutely agree Smial We wave all distorted towers through because imho we overuse the perspective correction in a quite bizarre and obsessive way (what I do not like at all, but its my personal opinion). So we have to accept this as QI as well and accept the correction as an artistic decisison of the photographer. -- DerFussi 12:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --DerFussi 12:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Town hall in Bystrzyca Kłodzka 1 --Jacek Halicki 09:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 09:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree Top of the building is unsharp, sorry --Cvmontuy 20:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Jacek Halicki, is that improvable? I guess I think it's good enough, anyway, so I give you mild   Support, but if you could improve the top of the building, that would be better. -- Ikan Kekek 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with user Cvmontuy. Sorry Jacek, but he's got right. --Halavar 22:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Animation of electric and magnetic dipole. Note that the resolution is intentionally in Wikipedia thumb size to minimize bandwidth requirements. --Geek3 16:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Intentional or not this fails the 2MP requirement for a quality image and is very clearly low quality. EoRdE6 01:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The rule is very clear: only .SVG files are exempt from the 2 megapixel minimum size requirement for QI.--Peulle 07:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support good animation. The rule of 2MP is nonsense for animated gifs. What we are like to see more with more then 2MP??? --Alchemist-hp 10:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Alchemist-hp: what are you going to see? Higher resolution? Less aliasing? Less pixelation? The exact same benefits you get from a higher resolution photograph? It's no different, that's a poor argument. There is a reason GIFs are specifically included in the guideline. EoRdE6 14:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Alchemist is right.--Ermell 11:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Guys, we've been over this: it doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not, we can't just decide to ignore the rules here in CR on a case by case basis. Non-.SVG images below 2MP are ineligible for nomination, that's just the way it is; this image has no business in CR.--Peulle 14:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Rules are rules. -- Ikan Kekek 16:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This image was created using a phyton script and IMHO, the important here is the source code present in the image description. It's not a photography and more size in this case is not more information --The Photographer 14:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - But the rule does not allow for exceptions. I suggest you propose a rule change. -- Ikan Kekek 17:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment In the past the 2-Mpixel-rule has never been applied for animations and/or videos. --Smial 19:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment That needs to be made explicit. -- Ikan Kekek 21:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I am not against a rule change, but as long as the rule says what it says, we need to follow it.--Peulle 23:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
[I added] the rule, please, feel you free to change/improve this rule --The Photographer 19:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do not demand 2 MPixels for an animated GIF, but 220*220px is really too small. Many wikipedias have nowadays a thumbnail standard size of 250 or 300 px width. Standard VGA (640*480px resp. 480*480px for square images) should be minimum. --Smial 19:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The rule of 2MP is nonsense for animated gifs. --Ralf Roletschek 21:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per IK and others. --A.Savin 22:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek 16:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)