Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

< Commons:Quality images candidates


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]] 07:14, 28 August 2016 (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.


August 28, 2016Edit

August 27, 2016Edit

  • Bulleted list item

August 26, 2016Edit

August 25, 2016Edit

August 24, 2016Edit

August 23, 2016Edit

August 22, 2016Edit

August 21, 2016Edit

August 20, 2016Edit

August 19, 2016Edit

August 5, 2016Edit

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:2016-07-27_Seagull_in_Zandvoort_aan_Zee_(02)_(freddy2001).jpgEdit

  • Nomination A seagull (Larus argentatus) in the dunes of Zandvoort aan Zee. --Freddy2001 20:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. W.carter 20:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think it is sharp enough. Charlesjsharp 22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Main object is sharp enough --Michielverbeek 06:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Lathrecista asiatica-Kadavoor-2016-07-04-001.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Lathrecista asiatica female --Jkadavoor 05:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Background a bit on the dark side, but good for me.--Famberhorst 05:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too dark for me. Charlesjsharp 22:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is full flash photography. It is different from fill flash or natural light photography. One is not better than other as everyone has its on pros and cons. Natural light and fill flash give more pleasing background; but with less details. In full flash photography, background will be just black if there is no nearby objects. But those photos have sharpest fine details of the subjects compared to less detailed natural light shots in high ISOs. (Just my thoughts from my few years of experience.) Jkadavoor 05:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-007.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Archibasis oscillans tandem --Jkadavoor 03:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I don't think conditions made it is possible to get a QI.  Comment no signature, therefore striked. --Hubertl 05:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose insufficient quality Charlesjsharp 07:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-004.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Archibasis oscillans mating --Jkadavoor 03:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I don't think conditions made it is possible to get a QI, even using flash.  Comment no signature, therefore striked. --Hubertl 05:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose insufficient quality. Charlesjsharp 07:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-008.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Archibasis oscillans ovipositing --Jkadavoor 03:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I don't think conditions made it is possible to get a QI, even using flash.  Comment no signature, therefore striked. --Hubertl 05:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose insufficient quality. Charlesjsharp 07:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Orthetrum sabina 09229.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Orthetrum sabina --Vengolis 02:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jkadavoor 02:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  OpposeAbdomen not in focus and quite dark. Charlesjsharp 22:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Lestes elatus 1442.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Lestes elatus --Vengolis 02:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not at all sharp. Charlesjsharp 22:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. Jkadavoor 05:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jkadavoor 05:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Euphaea dispar - Davidraju IMG 5408.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Euphaea dispar by Davidvraju --Jkadavoor 03:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 04:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  OpposeNot sure why you are nominating this user's images Jee. They don't appear QI to me. Charlesjsharp 23:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Davidraju Calicnemia miniata (Selys,1886) (1).jpgEdit

  • Nomination Calicnemia miniata by Davidvraju --Jkadavoor 03:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 19:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not for me. blurred. Charlesjsharp 23:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Hilton_Kiev-Modifier-Ilford+125_1.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Hilton hotel, Kiev, Ukraine --Albert Bergonzo 18:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ElBute 12:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No FoP in Ukraine. Nominated for deletion --A.Savin 07:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Insecto polinizando.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Insect in flowers pollinating -- Ivan2010 (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 13:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, wich insect?, wich flowers? Can you determine something for the photo to be helpful? Not QI for me without description, sorry--Lmbuga 20:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 06:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Vreden,_Zwillbrocker_Venn_--_2016_--_4122.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Nature reserve “Zwillbrocker Venn” (BOR-008), Vreden, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  SupportGood quality. --Jkadavoor 03:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think this is QI yet; half the sky is overexposed. --СССР 00:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Is this a comment or an oppose? --XRay 05:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment When it´s here, it was an oppose, XRay. Can you check it again please, СССР? --Hubertl 06:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've checked the histogram. It's OK. But I've just uploaded an image with (minor) improvements in the sky. --XRay 05:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Big parts of the sky still without any detail. Schade, das Licht war für die Landschaft selbst eigentlich sehr nett. --Smial 08:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO, regarding the faults to the complete composition, it is acceptable for QI. This should be the moment for using a grey filter with an hard edge. --Hubertl 09:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 09:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Castell_Llanymddyfri_Sir_Gaerfyrddin_gyda_cherflun_o_-_LLywelyn_ap_Gruffydd_Fychan_12.JPGEdit

  • Nomination Castell Llanymddyfri, Sir Gaerfyrddin; sculpture of LLywelyn ap Gruffydd Fychan, Welsh Prince. --Llywelyn2000 07:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, this is not QI. Insufficient quality. --Hubertl 08:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, and think we could discuss, after some possible improvements. Let this one have a chance.--Jebulon 09:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like the composition, but too dark - it should be reshot in nicer weather. Also, issues with sharpness and compression artifacts. --Yerpo 10:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed, and noise reduction has killed details. -- Smial 08:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:PL-SK Kałków, Sanktuarium Matki Bożej Bolesnej Pani Świętokrzyskiej 2016-08-18--14-58-08-002.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Monument to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, Sanctuary in Kałków, Poland --Kroton 17:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition: tree (foreground) is disturbing--Lmbuga 20:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  SupportThe trees are part of the monument site, four of them planted in formation around the plane, no way to avoid them. --W.carter 20:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, but composition could be better, not QI IMO, sorry--Lmbuga 20:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki 21:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 06:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Parts of the plane are unsharp and overexposed --A.Savin 09:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as A.Savin. --Hubertl 09:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Also per A.Savin. --Peulle 10:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry,for the opposers --Livioandronico2013 21:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • poor opposers --Hubertl 20:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)