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]] 10:16, 4 December 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.

December 4, 2016Edit

December 3, 2016Edit

December 2, 2016Edit

December 1, 2016Edit

November 30, 2016Edit

November 29, 2016Edit

November 28, 2016Edit

November 27, 2016Edit

November 26, 2016Edit

November 25, 2016Edit

November 24, 2016Edit

November 22, 2016Edit

November 21, 2016Edit

November 20, 2016Edit

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

File:Jean Michel Jarre B10-2016.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Jean-Michel Jarre, electronic music maker --A.Savin 16:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Conditional oppose A.Savin I was scrutinizing this as I was considering to nominate it at FPC, but I think there is too much chroma noise in his black clothing. Otherwise very nice shot! -- Slaunger 22:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Some noise is perceivable, but at this resolution it's absolutely within the acceptable limits, IMO. --Basotxerri 09:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 09:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Minsk. Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul (2016).jpgEdit


  • Nomination Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. Minsk, Belarus --Bestalex 10:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Looks OK. --Peulle 10:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now: please correct the tilt (church towers are leaning to the left) and chromatic aberrations. --A.Savin 15:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - This one really does need to be perspective-corrected. The combination of the fence going up and the towers going down makes no sense to me from any standpoint. -- Ikan Kekek 08:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 09:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Austrian Constitutional Court --Haeferl 23:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Great architecture and good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now: it needs a bit of perspective correction --A.Savin 10:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks fine to me. I guess you don't like foreshortening, which is totally standard technique in painting. -- Ikan Kekek 08:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, image is tilted and needs additional perspective correction. --Basotxerri 15:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 09:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Metro de São Paulo, --The Photographer 11:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 11:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry. Excessive NR, nothing sharp. --A.Savin 10:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    You can Apply the same rule for any condition --The Photographer 11:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 09:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:African music singer in São Paulo downtown, Brazil.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Afrincan music singer --The Photographer 11:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 11:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Lots of retouching artifacts at the background (left) --Smial 12:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done noise reduction in background --The Photographer 18:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • There are little white specks on her arms and shirt. Can you do anything about those? I see a few of them on the woman in the pink and white dress, too. -- Ikan Kekek 04:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done --The Photographer 11:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment The title should be "African", not "Afrincan", surely?--Peulle 11:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks done --The Photographer 12:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The Photographer, I still see little white spots in the hair of the woman in the pink and white dress. When you correct those, I plan to support this picture. -- Ikan Kekek 21:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    • The problem is overprocessing. We see some retouching in the background, and we see very strong noise reduction, then combined with strong sharpening. This makes artifacts everywhere. I would suggest to start from scratch with the raw file and use less invasive retouching methods. In street photography with moving people it can be necessary to use rather high ISO settings to get a sharp image and then some amount of noise is acceptable. Btw: I really like the composition and the situation. Great snapshot! --Smial 23:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This is for me a "lived" picture and the quality is in my opinion good enough fo QI. --Rabax63 10:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Yann 15:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Home less dog sleeping --The Photographer 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose The elephant is blurred. Charlesjsharp 14:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Yann 16:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - The elephant isn't that important for the picture. The photo in general is not that sharp and the carriage looks more focused than the dog, but I think it's good enough for the subject. -- Ikan Kekek 05:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, poor quality IMO: Too tight at right! (not QI!). All vertical lines, except the vertical lines on the left, are tilted to the right. Noise and detail are poor IMO--Lmbuga 17:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --W.carter 13:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Drunken man. --The Photographer 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment @The Photographer: You state that 'All identifiable persons shown specifically consented to publication of this photograph or video under a free license'. Is this true? Charlesjsharp 14:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Noisy, sorry. --Moroder 14:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • lets discuss, to me it's   Support, it must be noisy because it's dark there. Flash or tripod aren't a opinion. --Ralf Roletschek 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks OK to me. I'm surprised those two consented to the photograph, but I assume good faith. -- Ikan Kekek 05:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I cannot imagine this two persons gave you permission, but that's not my business. ISO2000 makes the photo very noisy but you a high ISO-value was absolutely necessary. However I think it is a brilliant composition, so I   Support this photo --Michielverbeek 06:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I can only agree with Michielverbeek regarding this composition. Perhaps you could tell us a little about how you do when you take these photos. Do you take the pic first and then go up to the people and ask if it was ok and if you can publish the photo or do you ask for permission first? W.carter 15:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm also interested on the consent achieved here. Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Brazil suggests you need consent prior to taking this photo, and I would doubt very much that the man is in a position to give satisfactory consent. In other countries, consent might not be required but one would have to be careful not to describe the man as drunk. In think The Photographer, you should be careful here, and if you don't have some written evidence of consent, then you are putting yourself at unnecessary legal risk for a hobby photo. -- Colin 15:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The woman asked me to take this picture, however, @Colin: is right and IMHO I need both consent. Btw, this place is a public place I need ask for the consent for each people in the scene ?. For example, for someone in this case the main subject here is the Station (not for me).
Although not mentioned in the law, it is generally recognized both by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied or not needed for pictures of
people who are present in a public space or participating in a public event (unless the depicted person is the main focus of the picture),

--The Photographer 12:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a little confusing what you mean but I would say the main subject here is the people (the filename isn't relevant). -- Colin 14:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Noisy, sorry. As Moroder. Left vertical lines are tilted to right --Lmbuga 17:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks overprocessed to me. Looking at the man's face, it seems like it has been denoised too much. About the permission thing: yes, it's the drunk guy's permission you need since he's the one in the awkward and embarrasing position.--Peulle 18:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Palauenc05 08:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --W.carter 13:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Alexander Thomson Hotel Glasgow --Ralf Roletschek 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I disagree. Too grainy. -- Ikan Kekek 06:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --A.Savin 10:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --cart-Talk 13:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Lighthouse on Norderney, Lower Saxony, Germany --XRay 05:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not for me. Charlesjsharp 13:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like it needs perspective correction, unless those posts actually do lean. The tower itself looks fine to me. It's a tower in fog, which is a perfectly good thing to take a photo of. XRay, please comment on the posts. -- Ikan Kekek 05:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I can comment the posts, yes. But I don't know the question? Do you think the tower is tilted? IMO another perspective correction is not a good way. It's just worm's eye view. --XRay 16:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The tower looks OK to me. It's the much lower-down posts I'm asking about. Did they lean in real life? -- Ikan Kekek 22:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The image is sharp, well exposed, no CA or other technical issues. Good composition. The perspective is obviously intended. --Smial 09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Perspective correction doesn't make sense in this case. QI for me.--Ermell 20:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Overcategorized.--Peulle 23:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually not, i.e. it does not have redundancies as we know from COM:OVERCAT. --A.Savin 04:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support OK to go — some noise, but the loss of quality is not severe enough to decline (IMO). --A.Savin 04:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, noise, perspective distortion make sense in this case for me (In many cases the photographers can not fly. In those cases we do not pretend that our photos are IQ), clarity, contrast--Lmbuga 17:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 21:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Eskimo Callboy beim Elbriot 2015. By User:Huhu Uet --Achim Raschka 05:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {{Comment}} and {{o}} It is completely inappropriate to threaten potential users with immediate legal action. Just because it is a community-sponsored project, you should use CC-BY-SA-4.0 here. Thanks for your kind understanding, Wikipedia should be and remain as a friendly place! --Hubertl 10:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Support now, thanks for changing the Template, Achim Raschka and Huhu Uet! --Hubertl 15:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Es ist unangebracht, hier Lizenzpolitik zu betreiben --Ralf Roletschek 10:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Hand and guitar are very unsharp at full size, hand is cut off. Not a QI in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 10:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan Kekek.--Peulle 13:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good sharpness and composition. Situation well captured. Perhaps very slight overexposure. -- Smial 15:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great concert shot. Yann 00:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good portrait.--Ermell 21:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm thinking, but see notes: Unacceptable spot or stain (see left area of the picture). Dust spot. Poor dof, CAs, chromatic noise, overexpossed areas. Sorry: Why is it QI?: Sharpness of a litle area?, hard to take?, size? But good or very good composition--Lmbuga 17:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 15:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)