Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

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]] 09:06, 25 May 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.


May 25, 2017Edit

May 24, 2017Edit

May 23, 2017Edit

May 22, 2017Edit

May 21, 2017Edit

May 20, 2017Edit

May 19, 2017Edit

May 17, 2017Edit

May 16, 2017Edit

May 15, 2017Edit

May 14, 2017Edit

May 12, 2017Edit

May 10, 2017Edit

May 6, 2017Edit

May 4, 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:Guépier_d'Europe_ichkeul.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination European bee-eater (Merops apiaster) at Ichkeul national park --El Golli Mohamed 16:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. (Small file) --XRay 17:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not good enough considering the small size, IMO. The beak isn't quite sharp and the plumage looks oversharpened.--Peulle 20:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle --Milseburg 06:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle -- Ikan Kekek 07:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 07:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:20160802_-_Rhesus_macaque_-_Mount_Popa,_Myanmar_-_7064.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Rhesus macaque at Mount Popa monastery in Myanmar --Jakubhal 20:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality --Halavar 21:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not in focus. Charlesjsharp 21:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek 07:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 07:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:WerderHavel 04-2016 img05.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Werder (Havel): Market square --A.Savin 10:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Question The shadows on the left side are very black. The tree, windows and black cars are almost just blocks of black. Any chance of brightening them a little so more details can be seen? --W.carter 22:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Probably not. But I'm surprised: these elements are really not important for the photo. Btw, the histogram I've just checked and it looks okay --A.Savin 22:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment They may not exactly be important for the photo but all that darkness on one side makes the photo unbalanced. Also what we perceive as black (or white) and what the histogram shows technically are two different things. Just have a think about it please. --W.carter 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Since we don't agree on this it's better to take it to CR. Hope you don't mind. --W.carter 15:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I guess it's well balanced--Moroder 04:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for QI --Milseburg 05:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks fine to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 07:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Reh_im_Dickicht.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Amazing face --Joschi71 13:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Ein Glückstreffer! Bei einem Foto, das zweifellos als Schnappschuß zu qualifizieren ist, muß dem Motiv Priorität vor der Qualität eingeräumt werden. Good quality for me.--Manfred Kuzel 15:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality imo --A.Savin 16:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture! --Arthur Crbz 20:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a very nice capture, but the technical quality is not high enough for QI since there is too much noise and the subject is not quite in focus.--Peulle 07:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Head (especially the eyes) unsharp, not good enough for QI. In an image like this, it would be better to tone down the highlights and to tone up the shadows. --Basotxerri 18:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor technical quality. Charlesjsharp 15:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles and others. -- Ikan Kekek 07:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 07:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Біла_скеля_42.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Belaya Rock in Crimea --Anntinomy 12:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support GQ --Palauenc05 16:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CAs on the right side, al lot of birds (visible as unsharp spots, should be removed) aroud the rock --Llez 17:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Granted, I may be missing the CA, but the birds are OK in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Green cast? --A.Savin 01:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed, the WB looks akward Poco a poco 09:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Ikan Kekek 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Entzia - Hayas Txumarregi 02.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Beeches (Fagus sylvatica) on a rock near the summit of Txumarregi in the Entzia mountain range. Álava, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 05:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --DXR 07:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Isn't this just a derivative work of this image, and as such it should not be nominated? --Peulle 08:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Well, clearly not, given that there are no clouds, that the viewpoints are different and that they were taken on different dates... --DXR 08:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Thank you Peulle for keeping this in mind but you can check the details or the EXIF IDs, it's a different image. And a different camera, too   --Basotxerri 11:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  Support All righty then. :)--Peulle (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Sanctuaire de Rocamadour 24.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Sanctuaire de Rocamadour, Lot, France. --Tournasol7 17:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  Oppose Nice photo, but top of the tower ia not sharp enough for me, unfortunately no Q1 --Michielverbeek 05:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support More than sharp enough for me, especially with regard to the high resolution, please discuss. --Tuxyso 19:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but this looks overprocessed to me.--Peulle 07:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality! Über manche Bewertungen – seien sie positiv oder negativ – kann ich mich nur wundern. -- Spurzem 11:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Definitely a QI 4 me. --Palauenc05 12:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK. --A.Savin 01:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco a poco 09:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Sandro Halank 22:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 05:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Havudsigt_fra_Tversted_Plantage_ved_Skiveren.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Sea view from Tversted Plantation at Skiveren --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   OpposeToo noisy IMO. Tournasol7 17:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. A moderate level of noise is inevitable with such high DR situations. --Tuxyso 19:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much chroma noise in darker areas Poco a poco 09:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose with others --Zoppo59 04:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 07:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-05-09_Jasmin_Ouschan_(re-publica_17)_by_Sandro_Halank–2.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Jasmin Ouschan (Austrian professional pool player) at re:publica 17 --Sandro Halank 10:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose High level of chroma noise, too shallow, not a QI to me, sorry --Poco a poco 10:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 11:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality --A.Savin 01:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 21:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Rotterdam, het Hofplein vlak voor het einde van de kampioenswedstrijd IMG 6779 2017-05-14 16.02.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Rotterdam, square (het Hofplein) just before the end of the match for championship --Michielverbeek 23:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Distracting calbes IMO, sorry --Cvmontuy 01:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think the poles are OK. They're part of the scene, and a shot of this whole crowd from this angle would be impossible without having them in the shot. Besides, I find the resulting forms interesting. -- Ikan Kekek 08:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan thanks for your comment, I try to show square Hofplein just before the celebrations were starting --Michielverbeek 10:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --C messier 19:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Manfred Kuzel 04:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I may support of the subject had been the poles but it is the square and it is definitely not the best spot to depict it, sorry. Poco a poco 09:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --]]]]

File:Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000-gebied provincie Friesland 06.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000 area of Friesland province. Heavy rain showers above the nature reserve. --Famberhorst 16:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Neutral Clouds are noisy, no enough detail, sorry --Cvmontuy 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done. New version. Thank you.--Famberhorst 17:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 07:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Clouds are well done --Michielverbeek 19:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support as sharpness ist just at the threshold Poco a poco 09:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 07:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Casino_(enneigé)_-_Challes-les-Eaux,_2017_(2).jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination The casino of Challes-les-Eaux, under snow, on January 10, 2017. --Lev. Anthony 22:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Bonne qualité, selon moi. -- Ikan Kekek 04:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice scenery, but may I disagree about the quality? --A.Savin 10:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course you may. My operating assumption is that the photo was taken while it was snowing fairly heavily. If I'm wrong, there's distortion that looks like snowfall, and in that case, you are right to assert poor quality and oppose promotion. -- Ikan Kekek 12:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I understand your assumption but I fear that what you see is a combination of low light, small sensor and aggressive noise reduction.   Oppose, sorry. --Basotxerri 14:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose per A.Savin --Sandro Halank 10:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Technical quality should be better but I see an appealing composition and good colors. -- Spurzem 21:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many noise reduction artifacts.--C messier 19:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We are at QI, it IS about technical quality --Poco a poco 09:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's fairly close for me, given the bad weather conditions, but in the end I think the quality isn't quite high enough.--Peulle 11:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose →   Declined   --Milseburg 05:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)