Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

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]] 19:34, 19 November 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.

November 19, 2017Edit

November 18, 2017Edit

November 17, 2017Edit

November 16, 2017Edit

November 15, 2017Edit

November 14, 2017Edit

November 13, 2017Edit

November 12, 2017Edit

November 11, 2017Edit

November 10, 2017Edit

November 9, 2017Edit

November 6, 2017Edit

November 5, 2017Edit

November 1, 2017Edit

October 28, 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 Rådhuset (Court House) underground metro station in Kungsholmen, Stockholm. --Julian Herzog 20:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PRO !! Really groovy --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 22:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Excellent. Why is this a discussion? -- Ikan Kekek 04:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • 🤣 --Julian Herzog 07:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri 07:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 07:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Morgan House is a Vintage British mansion converted to a boutique hotel. By User:Subhrajyoti07 --Bodhisattwa 01:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 02:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: CA, unsharp (and WTF) totally wrong colour temp. Green looks like old Fuji-Style and red is for blind peoble. Sorry, never a QI (and here no word about the boring sky) --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 21:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blown sky, CA.--Peulle 11:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 07:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination U-Bahn in Glasgow --Ralf Roletschek 01:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Nice photo, but the platform looks seriously deformed --Michielverbeek 08:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ralf, dreh´ das mal bitte etwas in die Waage. Es ist halt DX und dazu ein extremes WW. Dafür hast Du den Blick und kennst Deine HW. Die Fehlfarben (Neon) sind top, auch die Perspektive in einer Röhre. Ich mag es, da hier jemand sein Equipment kennt und mit der Optik spielt. 10fach besser als was man sonst zu sehen bekommt. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 22:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Hab mich am schwarzen Balken orientiert. --Ralf Roletschek 23:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Indeed it is looking better like this, more opinions please -Michielverbeek 08:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 07:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination The Montmajour Abbey near Arles. --Moroder 13:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Border of retouching visible in upper left corner, also quite noisy and unsharp in the upper part. --Uoaei1 12:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Uoaei1: I've interpreted your text as an opposite vote because otherwise I can't explain why this ended in CR. If you didn't oppose, please correct. --Basotxerri 07:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Fixed upper corner, resized --Moroder 14:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't like such extreme perspectives, but QI criteria are fulfilled. --Smial 02:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 09:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Cadillac Sedan de Ville --Berthold Werner 15:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 17:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Note: I do not agree. Nice recording of the car. But the sky is very white and there is an aura around the light pole on the right. Can you repair that?--Famberhorst 17:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 07:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very disturbing surroundings. This roof triangle in the background kills the composition. --Smial 02:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 09:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Свято-Пантелеимоновский собор, Киев, ул. Академика Лебедева, 25. Памятник архитектуры и градостроительства местного значения, охранный номер 436-Кв.Українська: Свято-Пантелеймонівський собор, Київ, вул. Лебедєва Академіка, 25. Пам'ятка архітектури і містобудування місцевого значення, охоронний номер 436-Кв. By User:Alexkrol --Ahonc 21:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 00:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much noise, tilt on the left side. --Berthold Werner 15:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Noise level might be OK, but agreed on the tilt - please correct that. -- Ikan Kekek 10:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --PumpkinSky 12:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Pula amphitheatre, Croatia. --Poco a poco 19:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Wrong temp and minimum 1/f overexposed --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 21:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version with reduced exposure. I am still convinced that the original one was anyhow a QI, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 19:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I don´t wanna get themes with you in future, really a discuss with other peoble makes sense. In my opinion the stones on the left back side still with not enough Details. It´s not only a point of exposure (a really hard sun light) what her is often discussed at clouds (no sense), but here it´s architecture, means need dodging and more sharpness. Pic-Peoble are not imp (only good for checking c-temp. The Point of the pic is the shadow (hard cold blue) and the front focus but not the building itselves --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 21:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - OK, maybe a few stones could have more details, but overall, you really think this isn't a QI? In the current version, I think it is clearly a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 10:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan Kekek --Cvmontuy 17:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 02:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Still clipping highlights in essential areas. --Smial 01:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --PumpkinSky 12:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Phare de Sayada, 14 novembre 2017 DSC 6994.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Lighthouse of Saydada --Dyolf77 10:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality, Tournasol7 11:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry but in my opinion not sharp enough. --Սարո Հովհաննիսյան 11:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree.--Peulle 09:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 11:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Seestrasse and St. Nicholas' Church in Stralsund (Oct. 2015) --JoachimKohlerBremen 09:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose - Quite beautiful, but I regret that it is in my opinion not sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 02:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Resolution could be higher but the sharpness is o.k. IMO --Ermell 09:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this image is reaching the quality level for night shots. --Milseburg 12:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Could be sharper but OK for QI, I think.--Peulle 11:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Why the reduced resolution? Noise is still present and some details are lost. The full resolution versions are imho sharp enough for QI with acceptable noise. Landscapes (and cityscapes) should have at least 6 MPixels nowadays. --Smial 01:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --PumpkinSky 12:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Temporary exhibition of skulls made by several Mexican artists to commemorate the day of the dead, on Paseo de la Reforma, Mexico City. --Cvmontuy 21:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose It´s a 40:/60! Quality is good enough. For me, it´s a snap, not a fotographers work. For Q1 enough, like a lot of snaps here. Go ahead! --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 19:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC
  •   Comment Thanks for your review, Would you please be more specifiq about the main image issues, regards --Cvmontuy 01:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Matches QI standards but the person on the right should be cropped out IMO. --Ermell 09:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have croped thanks --Cvmontuy 21:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky 15:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 02:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --PumpkinSky 12:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Audi A3 SportBack 2017 Drammensfjorden (1).jpgEdit


  • Nomination Audi A3 on a hill overlooking the Drammen fjord.--Peulle 23:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Insuficient DOF, the logo in the front wheel is sharp but the one in the back is out of focus, sorry --Cvmontuy 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment That's OK, thanks for reviewing.--Peulle 11:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Limited depth of focus is OK in my view - the main subject (car) should stand out from the picture. Technically ok, although the purpose for wikipedia is unclear, given plenty of existing images of A3. --JiriMatejicek 15:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment JiriMatejicek please confirm if your are supporting or opossing for QI, regards --Cvmontuy 05:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm undecided on whether to support or oppose, but JiriMatejicek, if you think the photo is technically acceptable and also has an acceptable composition, you should support. The "purpose for Wikipedia" is irrelevant, as Commons is a repository of images that are free for anyone to use according to the terms of their license, and not an arm of Wikipedia. Moreover, the number of photos of a motif is also completely irrelevant to QIC. If this were being nominated in the scope A3 on VIC, whether there were better images of the car would be relevant. -- Ikan Kekek 06:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Depth of field is ok to me. --Cayambe 07:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing wrong with the DoF but the lighting is far from optimal, almost all the car is in the shadow. --Selbymay 09:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Totally fine QI-wise. The half-shadow makes the curves of the car more prominent in an interesting way, in direct light they would have been much less visible. Could be improved by cropping away some of the road at the bottom though. --cart-Talk 10:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Back of the car and rear wheel unsharp, unsatisfactory lighting and composition. --Smial 01:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Selbymay (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)