Open main menu

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

< Commons:Quality images candidates

Contents

NominationsEdit

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]] 05:53, 22 October 2018 (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.

October 22, 2018Edit

October 21, 2018Edit

October 20, 2018Edit

October 19, 2018Edit

October 18, 2018Edit

October 17, 2018Edit

October 16, 2018Edit

October 15, 2018Edit

October 14, 2018Edit

October 13, 2018Edit

October 12, 2018Edit

October 11, 2018Edit

October 10, 2018Edit

October 9, 2018Edit

October 8, 2018Edit

October 7, 2018Edit

October 5, 2018Edit

October 4, 2018Edit

Consensual reviewEdit

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".


Consensual ReviewEdit

File:2018-06-15_(109)_ÖBB_1116_ÖAMTC_locomotive_with_Railjet_at_Bahnhof_St._Valentin,_Austria.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination ÖBB 1116 ÖAMTC locomotive with Railjet at Bahnhof St. Valentin, Austria.--GT1976 02:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    I disagree. The verticals should be fixed. Sorry. --Ermell 19:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:2018-06-15_(145)_27_80_4371_543-4_at_Bahnhof_St._Valentin,_Austria.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination 27 80 4371 543-4 at Bahnhof St. Valentin, Austria.--GT1976 02:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    I disagree. The verticals here as well. --Ermell 19:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Theodore_Roosevelt_NP_ND9.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Theodore Roosevelt National Park. --Acroterion 03:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support OK. Sharpness good enough. Description fixed. --XRay 05:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree. I don´t think that sharpness is good enough here. On this kind of image there have to be more in corrct focus. --Milseburg 11:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think this mostly relates to DOF. The foreground formation not very large - it is about 30-40m away and is maybe 6m tall. The background formations are about 400-500m away, and are therefore out of focus. Short of using a lens with a tilt function, the background will tend to be out of focus, even at small aperture. I can increase sharpening for the foreground, but I dislike overdoing that and I'm not seeing unsharpness in the foreground. Acroterion 15:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Theodore_Roosevelt_NP_ND8.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Theodore Roosevelt National Park --Acroterion 03:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Syed07 04:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree. DOF, foreground and centre are ok, but the rest is too blurry to reach QI-status. --Milseburg 10:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:La_Vivriere_Statue_1995.tifEdit

 

  • Nomination La Vivriere --The Photographer 23:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Oppose presence of noise, ~~~~
    I disagree. Its a unchangeable raw file, in the noise there are information --The Photographer 03:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Trier_Domfreihof_BW_2018-05-12_16-54-31.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Trier, Domfreihof 2 --Berthold Werner 14:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --GT1976 14:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Probably needs a horizontal perspective correction --Trougnouf 15:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks normal to me. It's also a sharp photo. -- Ikan Kekek 08:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The roof is leaning down \ pretty significantly imo, that doesn't usually happen in real life where only the street level leans. If that building isn't an anomaly the picture is tilted and/or the camera was slightly off-center, either way it's an easy fix. --Trougnouf 10:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Possible that the facade does not run at right angles to the viewing axis. --Milseburg 11:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 11:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Facade_Stadtpfarrkirche_Lindenberg.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Facade of Stadtpfarrkirche in Lindenberg.--Peulle 10:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Syed07 13:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose  Neutral I think it needs perspective correction and there seems to be room for it --Trougnouf 14:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Not everything needs perspective correction. Photographer's choice. And very good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
It is part of the technical requirements and something I very much like about QIC (I didn't really know perspective correction was a thing before). --Trougnouf 10:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Normally, you'd be correct, but there are angles at which the perspective should not be corrected since it's part of the composition. The typical example is when taking photos of a tall building from very close distance. See the category quality images by perspective for examples.--Peulle 12:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The image needs a correction, it is tilted CCW. But the verticals should not be vertical for this point of view. --XRay 12:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll correct the slight tilt post haste.--Peulle (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)   Done :)
  •   Support IMO OK now. Thank you. --XRay 05:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 05:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Renault_Nervasport,_Paris_Motor_Show_2018,_Paris_(1Y7A0475).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Renault Nervasport record vehicle at Mondiale Paris Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 08:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Too many problems with the people in back ... unsharp, motion blur, distortion. Also the purplish light on the bright blue car doesn't do it any favors --Daniel Case 17:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see how a blurry background is a problem. I would like to hear more opinions. --MB-one 20:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Yes, the car is sharp, but the motion-blurred man just in back of the middle of the car is too distracting for me to consider this a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 09:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 12:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Morris_dancers_York_8667.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Morris dancers performing in York (June 2018) by User:Peter K Burian --Rodhullandemu 08:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Sorry but I don't think the sharpness is sufficient for an image of this fairly low resolution. We expect more from a quality image in 2018.--Peulle 09:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Quite good for a moving group of dancers --Ermell 20:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice scene, but focus appears to be on the background, sorry. --Smial 09:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 11:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Ciaspolatore_e_Rifugio_Cazzaniga_Merlini,_Piani_di_Artavaggio_(Lecco,_Lombardia)_1649_m.s.l.m._innevati._2016-03-19.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Snowshoe hiker on Piani di Artavaggio mountain, Italy. --Mænsard vokser 17:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good to me. --Ximonic 18:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy sky and a bit tilted --Trougnouf 08:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Trougnouf; there's also purple CA. Seeing that it's a compact camera, I'm not too surprised.--Peulle 06:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 21:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 21:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Hannah_verzweifelt_1060937.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Two-year-old Hannah would like another ice cream. --Ermell 06:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Dude... When you post such an image of a child on Commons, you add a personality rights warning! Come on, seriously, you're not a n00b here... As for judging the quality, I'd prefer if the description was a bit more to the point and not making assumptions. Also the noise could be reduced a little bit.--Peulle 09:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done Description and noise fixed but I can't do much with the slightly outrageous upper text.--Ermell 21:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Some more opinions in this case. --Ermell 12:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - OK with the personality rights warning. -- Ikan Kekek 01:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah, here it is. Sorry, I didn't notice your response. The file page is acceptable now, but I'm still not 100% convinced about the image itself, re the result of the noise reduction. Let's leave it up to the users to decide. :) --Peulle 06:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for me. Very iconic picture. --Zinnmann 01:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality -- Basile Morin 10:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very ugly picture! Vanneau Asocial 21:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Italic text

File:Veria_BW_2017-10-06_09-40-08.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Greece, Veria, Saint Paul altar --Berthold Werner 10:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The top of picture is out of focus, not QI for me--Սարո Հովհաննիսյան 07:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Everything in the niche is sharp enough at 300% of my laptop screen. The tiles on top of the niche are unsharp, but I think that was the photographer's choice and doesn't make the picture poor-quality. -- Ikan Kekek 09:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sharpness is not ideal and the right crop is too tight.--Peulle 07:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 10:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Porsche,_Paris_Motor_Show_2018,_Paris_(1Y7A2131).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Porsche 718 Boxster GTS, Mondiale Paris Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 18:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for discussion; I'm not so sure about this one, since the rims are blurry I think the whole image is struggling with sharpness. --Peulle 23:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Still acceptable imho. --GerifalteDelSabana 04:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ausreichend --Steschke 20:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 07:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)