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]] 06:07, 27 July 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.


July 27, 2016Edit

July 26, 2016Edit

July 25, 2016Edit

July 24, 2016Edit

July 23, 2016Edit

July 22, 2016Edit

July 21, 2016Edit

July 20, 2016Edit

July 19, 2016Edit

July 18, 2016Edit

July 17, 2016Edit

July 15, 2016Edit

July 13, 2016Edit

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 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg 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:Montesquieu Pierre Bergoïoni.jpgEdit

Montesquieu Pierre Bergoïoni.jpg

  • Nomination Funerary inscription for Pierre Bergoïoni (13th ctry.), Montesquieu-des-Albères, France. --Palauenc05 07:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but with such soft texture on the tablet, I'm afraid the camera's focus ended up on the bricks over it. Try using focus lock for such motifs. W.carter 13:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, I think, it is enough for QI --Hubertl 14:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Really? A stationary medium-sized object like this should not be hard to get a good focus on, but I will welcome the opinions of others at CR. W.carter 14:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:16-07-20-Marktplatz-Eberswalde-RalfR-WP 20160720 17 30 37 Pro.jpgEdit

16-07-20-Marktplatz-Eberswalde-RalfR-WP 20160720 17 30 37 Pro.jpg

  • Nomination Marktplatz Eberswalde--Ralf Roletschek 15:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Unsharp (looks almost like digital zooming), "frozen" water (longer exposure may help). Poorly categorized (of course). --A.Savin 16:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 05:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Schlosspark Fulda (03).jpgEdit

Schlosspark Fulda (03).jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture in the park by the castle in Fulda --Verum 10:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong WB. --Smial 12:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it´s good practice, not immediately decline pictures with improveable faults. --Hubertl 19:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done (please reload page to see) I used the statue itself for WB, using the lightbulb behind it made it too blue as it is a warm afternoon (17:08) photo. W.carter 11:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Schlosspark Fulda (02).jpgEdit

Schlosspark Fulda (02).jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture in the park by the castle in Fulda --Verum 10:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong WB --Smial 12:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it´s good practice, not immediately decline pictures with improveable faults. --Hubertl 19:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done (please reload page to see) I used the statue itself for WB. W.carter 11:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK. --A.Savin 16:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 06:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:OndinadePlatareflejadaenelagua-jul2016.jpgEdit

OndinadePlatareflejadaenelagua-jul2016.jpg

  • Nomination Estatua Ondina de Plata y su reflejo en el agua, Jardín Botánico de Buenos Aires, Argentina --Ezarate 01:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 03:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shouldn't QIs be correctly categorized? --Berthold Werner 11:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC) --Berthold Werner 09:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Ezarate 12:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok now. W.carter 11:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 11:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Χώρα Σερίφου 9536.jpgEdit

Χώρα Σερίφου 9536.jpg

  • Nomination View of Chora of Serifos. --C messier 08:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is some purple CA on buildings. And then there is noise all around. Kruusamägi 09:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done --C messier 10:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me it still doesn't seem to be good enough. That purple halo on building edges really annoys me. Kruusamägi 10:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I had to zoom way more than 100% to find any CAs, and there was no purple CA on building edges. --C messier 10:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Will support if the black triangel (caused by perspective correction) down right is removed. The halos do not disturb in 100% view. If I zoom in to find them, I see a really horrible problem instead: the sharpness is NOT sufficiant to read the car plates!!!! -- Smial 13:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done --C messier 10:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0.5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Άσπρος Πύργος Σερίφου 9546.jpgEdit

Άσπρος Πύργος Σερίφου 9546.jpg

  • Nomination Building material from white tower of Serifos. --C messier 17:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To me, the blocks are a little bit too bright. --Dirtsc 15:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not according to the histogram. --C messier 18:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I didn't meant that the blocks are blown out, I would just suggest to darken them a bit. I think you can avoid the harsh contrast. --Dirtsc 13:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI agree with Dirtsc, but this is one argument we are never going to win as long as the histogram is right, better send it to CR and let others decide. W.carter 07:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And further more, a photographer from the mediterranean (e.g. C messier) tends to have a different view about how colours and brightness should be than photographers living in a land with only a couple of hours of daylight during december (e.g. W.carter and me). ;-) --Dirtsc (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mediterranean sun and clear sky will result in high contrasts also in the evening. To me the image looks quite natural. -- Smial 13:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 06:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Συκαμιά Σερίφου 1923.jpgEdit

Συκαμιά Σερίφου 1923.jpg

  • Nomination Sykamia, Serifos. --C messier 14:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO too unsharp. May be too low contrast too. I think it's difficult to take another one. --XRay 06:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)--XRay 15:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Added some contrast, but I don't see unsharpness. --C messier 10:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks. IMO the water can crop out at the top too. But it's acceptable. --XRay 15:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp enough in 100% view -- Smial 09:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 15:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:16-03-30-Jerusalem_Mishkenot_Sha’ananim-RalfR-DSCF7635.jpgEdit

16-03-30-Jerusalem Mishkenot Sha’ananim-RalfR-DSCF7635.jpg

  • Nomination Mishkenot Sha’ananim, Jerusalem --Ralf Roletschek 10:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion

Good quality. --Hubertl 11:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a large dust spot in sky, correctable --Llez 15:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 17:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment there are some other dust spots too, see notes. --Hubertl 18:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok now --Hubertl 19:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 19:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

File:BasílicaLujan-jul2016.jpgEdit

BasílicaLujan-jul2016.jpg

  • Nomination Front view of Nuestra Señora de Luján Basílica --Ezarate 22:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Stitching error left side, retouching leftover at the lamp right side, too magentaish, too dark. --Cccefalon 06:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done redone --Ezarate 13:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA. -- Smial 10:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)i
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Smial: Could you please add notes on the picture over the CAs, thanks!! --Ezarate 13:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment reworked Ezarate 00:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 19:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Heißluftballons_über_Ellmau,_Tirol,_160625,_ako.jpgEdit

Heißluftballons über Ellmau, Tirol, 160625, ako.jpg

  • Nomination Two blue hot air balloons above the town of Ellmau, Tyrol, Austria. --Code 06:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hm... ballons just a small part of the image, and therefore they are to noisy IMHO --Carschten 12:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We've already promoted much noisier pictures.And it has always been good practice here not to decline immediately but to give the creator the opportunity to fix the issue! --Code 21:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Don't think too much about other images; there is very little consistency in QI judging as images are subjectively judged by different people. --Peulle 10:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the baloons look sharp enough at 100% although the image could be zoomed in further. --Peulle 10:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you, Peulle, but anyways I thought it would be obvious that the composition is intentional. Two balloons lost in a lot of empty sky. One bigger than the other. Do I really have to explain my pictures to get them promoted? By the way: This isn't FPC. --Code 12:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me - as explained ;-) --Hubertl 10:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii.jpgEdit

Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii.jpg

  • Nomination Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii--AlixSaz 16:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose File too small (min 2 Mb) and stones overexposed.--W.carter 16:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see the overexposed stones, but the photo is nearly 3 Mpix (we count size Mpix not MB). --C messier 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then plese lets see what a CR will bring. I dont see a significant overexposation. --Dirtsc 15:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is good in my opinion. --Dirtsc 07:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Jkadavoor 09:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If overexposure is the problem, surely that can be fixed in the edit? Waiting for a new version before voting. --Peulle 16:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me --Uoaei1 20:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others + image is overcategorized. --A.Savin 16:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 22:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_Cologne-Gay-Pride-2016_Parade-032.jpgEdit

Cologne Germany Cologne-Gay-Pride-2016 Parade-032.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: Headgear of a participant of Cologne Pride Parade 2016 --Cccefalon 03:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The head gear is sharp enough but it is so dominating that it should be centered in the pic, perhaps a crop? The white downy fluff needs a bit more structure and the rater white/light sky and flags behind it could use a little boost. There is some slight CA on the small building top right. Do you think you could fix this? --W.carter 21:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad crop --Atamari 18:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks pretty much as a huffy reaction on the QIC Abuse thread. However, it is also bad behaviour to override a review comment with an oppose without giving the opportunity to look into the alleged issue. --Cccefalon 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nein, keine Rache-Aktion (das mag ich nicht), ich schaute aber bei dem "First class premium-Revier" wie seine Bilder aussehen. Dieses ist für deine Verhältnisse nur ein mittelmäßiges Bild - das kannst du besser. Das Bild ist zwar scharf im Bereich der linken Schulter aber der Ausschnitt überzeugt (mir) nicht. Links ist das Objekt, der Kopfschmuck, das wohl der Fokus des Bildes darstellen soll, zu sehr am Rand gedrängt. Vielleicht es ging wohl nicht besser. Und oben setzt sich auch der Kopfschmuck auch nicht schön von der Flagge ab. Nach unten ist der Kopfschmuck auch unglücklich beschnitten, auch ragt dort unten rechts ein halber Kopf hinein. Wenn du doch schönere Bilder machen kannst - warum dieses Bild? Was hat bei deiner Wahl hier gestört? Ging es dir hier um +1 auf des QI-Konto? ;-) --Atamari (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Dear, it is not that I am short of images for nomination, I have around 50.000 unprocessed here and if you observe my upload list, you easily see that I am far from putting every photo to my nomination list. It is a petty demand, to ask the same quality for street photography than for studiophotography or architecture/landscape photography. What the fuck - after having nominated some superior photos, you think I cannot achieve promotion for a photo of normal quality? This photo is good as it is. It is taken with the best camera settings you can obtain for a close-up for moving objects in a crowd. --Cccefalon 08:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The right part of the head gear is out of focus, and the white parts of it blends with the background. --Peulle 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can´t see, how to make it better. A smaller crop maybe? The back of the head and the main part of the head figure - which is in fact the main subject, is perfectly sharp. --Hubertl 04:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cropped a bit tight but QI for me.--Ermell 20:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like Hubertl --Verum 10:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK4QI --A.Savin 16:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 01:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)