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]] 10:23, 22 July 2018 (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.

July 22, 2018Edit

July 21, 2018Edit

July 20, 2018Edit

July 19, 2018Edit

July 18, 2018Edit

July 17, 2018Edit

July 16, 2018Edit

July 15, 2018Edit

July 14, 2018Edit

July 13, 2018Edit

July 12, 2018Edit

July 11, 2018Edit

July 10, 2018Edit

July 08, 2018Edit

July 07, 2018Edit

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 33rd Junior World Championship Luge, Altenberg 2018 – Team: Anna Smirnova (KAZ) --Sandro Halank 15:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose The bottom crop is really unfortunate --Poco a poco 15:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't mind the crop. The feet of that lady are not essential for this kind of "portrait". Otherwise good.
  •   Support OK for me. --Palauenc05 08:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 08:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination African penguin on Boulders Beach, Cape Town --MB-one 08:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Inadequate description on image page. Too wide crop. Johannes Robalotoff 12:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Johannes Robalotoff: thanks for the comment. Fixed the description, disagree with the crop assessment. --MB-one 01:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 08:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination ਲੋਹੜੀ ਉੱਤਰੀ ਭਾਰਤ ਦਾ, ਖ਼ਾਸ ਕਰ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਅਤੇ ਹਰਿਆਣੇ ਦਾ ਇੱਕ ਮਸ਼ਹੂਰ ਤਿਉਹਾਰI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:. By User:Sukhan saar --Satdeep Gill 05:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion Would like to have some information about this picture in English.--GPSLeo 16:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      Done English description added --Satdeep Gill 15:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --GPSLeo 09:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree; there is very little sharpness (even taking the heat blur into account), and I find that light streak in front of the guy on the right disturbing.--Peulle 12:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 08:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination Oriental magpie-robin (Copsychus saularis) at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Very slight pre-process posterization, I've no idea why. Also, the wet feathers that are reflecting the sunlight may be mistaken for artifacting.--GerifalteDelSabana 14:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Background too dark for bird --Atamari 14:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Atamari: The issue has been promptly addressed. --GerifalteDelSabana 14:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I'll go along with this one; the bird itself is sharp and the background isn't too distracting for QI.--Peulle 12:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Peulle --Sandro Halank 15:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support QI 4 me. --Palauenc05 08:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 15:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination Pond Heron at Safari Park. By User:Abdulmominbd --RockyMasum 13:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Quite alot of visible noise but I still love it. --GerifalteDelSabana 13:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but not a QI like this, you'll have to find out the species ID and improve description+category --Poco a poco 14:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good photo, but bad description and category. Please fix this and I will support in spite of some visible noise. Johannes Robalotoff 11:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As it is, no. Too much noise, CA around the beak and insufficient categorization and description.--Peulle 12:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment Where do you see (significant) CA? I think the slight purple fringe at the bird's beak could be part of its real color. Johannes Robalotoff 13:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
That could very well be the case.--Peulle 01:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination Pop view of Corte Lardoni and the belltower of the Angelo San Raffaele church in Venice --Moroder 17:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Interesting contrast, hard colours, quality high enough for Q1   Support --Michielverbeek 18:11, 18 July 2018 (UT}
  • {{o}} Sorry, strong chromatic noise (see note). Oversaturated IMO. Noised sky. Not QI for me--Lmbuga 18:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support ok --Sandro Halank 13:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done NR --Moroder 14:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Better now. Thamks --Lmbuga 10:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 13:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination Start am Mittag, See am Goldberg, 63150 Heusenstamm By User:Mathias Mauer --Ralf Roletschek 06:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   OpposeNot sharped, not focused, slight motion blurring and posterization. --GerifalteDelSabana 06:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   SupportBut for me it's good enough. Tournasol7 07:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per GerifalteDelSabana --Sandro Halank 13:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The filename must be improved. --XRay 05:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality-wise close to QI but I'm not quite sure, and the file name/description are meaningless.--Peulle 12:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination Sankt Tönis-NRW, church: die Pfarrkirche Sankt Cornelius --Michielverbeek 06:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose It need a perspective correction, Tournasol7 07:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Tournasol7. Johannes Robalotoff 11:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The right is leaning in.--Peulle 12:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Tournasol7. --Fischer.H 15:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination Dragonfly resting on a branch--Sathya K Selvam 04:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough. Sorry. --Ermell 06:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. It is sharp enough to see individual veins and some hair, so I feel that it is good enough for the type of shot. --GerifalteDelSabana 03:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell --Sandro Halank 11:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose to many unsharp areas, --Fischer.H 15:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The DoF is too shallow.--Peulle 12:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)



  • Nomination The castle Burg Landshut in Bernkastel-Kues.--Peulle 23:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough, perhaps because of the haze --Daniel Case 17:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I think I'd like to get some more input on this one, though: considering the camera is 2,9 km away from the target and that we can still see individual stones in the walls despite the slight haze, I'm hard pressed to find anything really technically wrong with it. I have a feeling that this is about as good a long-shot it's possible to get on a hazy day. What do we think, people?--Peulle 19:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good motive, but unfortunately for me no QI. --Fischer.H 11:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Somewhat soft probably due to haze, but "good enough". "De-hazing" would give unnatural colours. --Smial 09:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • weak   Support, per Smial --Sandro Halank 09:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The blue haze in the air should not exist in a quality image. The positive reviews surprise me. -- Spurzem 20:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Smial. I've tried something of the same concept in the past, but it's so hazy here, "dust and dander" is rated on "extreme", haha... --GerifalteDelSabana 06:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I'm agree whith others. Good picture. Clarity would be better. es: Aumentando la claridad el problema se reduce ---Lmbuga 17:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
New retouched image: File:Burg Landshut jun 2018 (4 retouched).jpg. I think that it's better and QI like the other one--Lmbuga 17:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  Comment Very nice rework, because it preserves some of the haze and did not increase color saturation too much. Now it is up to peulle, if he wants to withdraw the original and accept the rework? I do not think both versions of the very same image should be QI. --Smial 12:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what was done to that new image. If it's better, though, why not simply re-upload it as a new version? This is Commons after all.--Peulle 20:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The author of the two photos is @Peulle:. If he wants to upload the second over the first, and delete the one that I have uploaded, there is no problem. (@Smial:)--Lmbuga 11:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
If someone wants to upload the new version over the old one, I have no problem with that.--Peulle 12:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)