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]] 14:20, 23 February 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.


February 23, 2017Edit

February 22, 2017Edit

February 21, 2017Edit

February 20, 2017Edit

February 19, 2017Edit

February 18, 2017Edit

February 17, 2017Edit

February 16, 2017Edit

February 15, 2017Edit

February 14, 2017Edit

February 13, 2017Edit

February 11, 2017Edit

February 10, 2017Edit

February 9, 2017Edit

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:Biswas_Ras_Mancha.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Ras Mancha near the Biswas Bari of Cossipore. By User:DeepanjanGhosh --Sumitsurai 11:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Needs some perspective correction. --A.Savin 16:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now -A.Savin 01:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 13:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-02-03_Julia_Taubitz_by_Sandro_Halank–1.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Julia Taubitz beim HELABA Nationscup der Damen in Oberhof 2017 --Sandro Halank 20:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose The main subject is sharp enough, but the photo's composition is unfortunately ruined by the cut man behind her. Sorry. --W.carter 20:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • weak   Support despite the guy in the background. --Palauenc05 21:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree with cart: The cut-off guy is essentially a photobomb, way too distracting. -- Ikan Kekek 02:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others.--Peulle 07:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Rio_di_San_Basilio_tramonto_a_Venezia.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination The Rio di San Basilio canal in Venice at dawn. --Moroder 12:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment I will leave others to judge as the motion blur is quite disturbing to me, but the category red link needs fixing, that's for sure.--Peulle 12:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  Done Fixed category. The motion blur is a matter of taste, in the meanwile I have dozens of QI pictures of Venice with these settings. Thanks for the comments --Moroder 19:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Walking people are blurring too much for me. Why not a shorter exposure time, a higher ISO-value, a bit lower f-value? --Michielverbeek 18:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't mind the blurry people. Juliancolton 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As per Juliancolton --Cvmontuy 16:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Peulle 11:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Mallnitz_Altes_Tauernhaus_01.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Altes Tauernhaus (2,380 metres (7,810 ft)) in the Tauern Valley near Mallnitz, High Tauern National Park, Carinthia --Uoaei1 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose sorry, but not sharp enough --PtrQs 03:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • New version available, lets discuss --Uoaei1 05:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support IMHO sharp enough for good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Moroder 15:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question -- and how do we read the QI-guidelines [1]: 'Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality).' Here it was 17 -> 9,5 MB --PtrQs (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • haahh, it's the damn pixelpeepers! --Moroder 21:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • thank you for this very useful hint. So if everybody's happy with that pic, I won't persist in any standards   --PtrQs (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Kraaijenbergse Plassen, ophaalbrug foto10 2017-02-15 13.06.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Kraaijenbergse Plassen (near Cuijk)-NL, drawing bridge --Michielverbeek 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Image needs perspective correction. Right side of the image is tilted CW. --Halavar 21:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, I can`t detect any perspective irregularity. Thus for me it is of good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
      Comment See image at full size - structures are leaning to the right (I left a note). Problem is easy to fix. --Halavar 09:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not so sure that it's leaning in because the house on the right and the caravans don't seem so. For me it's OK. --Basotxerri 14:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 14:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2016_Singapur,_Downtown_Core,_Marina_Bay_Sands_i_ArtScience_Museum_(10).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Marina Bay Sands and ArtScience Museum. Downtown Core, Central Region, Singapore. By User:The Photographer --Halavar 11:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Milseburg 13:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's tilted! --Pudelek 09:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)) Pudelek 10:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done New, fixed version uploaded. --Halavar 09:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Now is ok --Pudelek 10:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Pudelek 10:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:New_York-1140892-PS.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Panorama of the skyline of Manhattan --Ermell 11:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 13:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry. I disagree. The buildings as an impotant part of the image are too dark.. --Milseburg 20:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Milseburg --Michielverbeek 06:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yeah, I think the right side is too dark. -- Ikan Kekek 08:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline? Peulle 09:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Haus-Nordfassade,_2017,_Oetztaler_Str._23,_München.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Modern residental house in Munich --Lucasbosch 10:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 13:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. I can´t understand the composition. Too much sky and only a part of the building? --Milseburg 20:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The composition is certainly strange, with the slanty building and the plane looking as if it's diving headlong into its side, but weird doesn't mean bad quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop doesn't fit to the description. --Palauenc05 21:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not? We see part of the facade. -- Ikan Kekek 00:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:29._Ulica_-_Circus_Ferus_-_Serce_Polski_-_20160707_1304.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Actor of Circus Ferus theatre in the show "Heart of Poland" at 29. ULICA – The International Festival of Street Theatres in Kraków --Jakubhal 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Too tight for me, Vanoot59 17:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not for me, I think the crop is fine. Let's discuss.--Peulle 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree with Vanoot59: The top crop is too tight and makes me feel like it's pushing the man down. -- Ikan Kekek 23:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Crop is good enough for Q1. It would have been different if this man would have had a lot of hair --Michielverbeek 07:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Works as far as QI is concerned. --W.carter 22:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 22:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Graureiher_P2170099-PS.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Gray heron on the roof --Ermell 11:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality --Halavar 11:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too soft. Charlesjsharp 19:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - In view of the size of the file, I agree with Charles. -- Ikan Kekek 23:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK and QI --Milseburg 08:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. A bit more contrast would be better. But good for QI. -- Spurzem 12:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please add location, corresponding category. --A.Savin 02:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 13:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 09.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Mountain hiking of parking in power station Malga Mare to Lago Lungo (2553m).--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good composition, but unfortunately oversharpened --Michielverbeek 08:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 21:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A little oversharpened but still acceptable to me. Juliancolton 00:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 08:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)