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]] 20:43, 27 September 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.


September 27, 2016Edit

September 26, 2016Edit

September 25, 2016Edit

September 24, 2016Edit

September 23, 2016Edit

September 22, 2016Edit

September 21, 2016Edit

September 20, 2016Edit

September 19, 2016Edit

September 18, 2016Edit

September 17, 2016Edit

September 16, 2016Edit

September 14, 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  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:High-speed train at platform in Milano Stazione Centrale.jpgEdit

  • Nomination ETR 500 Italian high-speed train at Milano Centrale --Daniel Case 17:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Visible CA at the ceiling of the train station. Try to reduce highlights as well. --ElBute 16:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just to let you know I am working on this. Daniel Case 02:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 Done OK, this is what I could do. Daniel Case 22:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I'm afraid the overexposition at the end of the station is not recoverable. However, this is unavoidable and not the object of interest in the photo. In any case, the CA at the ceiling are still very noticeable. It's easy to fix that. --ElBute 10:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
yeah, efforts to fix the other end usually made the CA worse, so I had to strike a balance; if we just focus on that maybe it will work. Daniel Case 16:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I did it for you. If you don't agree, please revert. Good quality now. --ElBute 08:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice work but not QI for me.--Ermell 07:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 19:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


File:Monument_to_Empress_Elisabeth,_Volksgarten_Vienna,_September_2016.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Monument to Empress Elisabeth of Austria (Sisi), in the Volksgarten close to the Hofburg imperial palace in Vienna. --Martin Falbisoner 12:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment please reprocess it if possible, its badly overexposed. --Hubertl 20:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {{o}}, I´m sorry, but obviously, this scenery is, because of the Burghtheater in the background, not captureable at this daytime without using HDR. I send it to CR for additional opinions. --Hubertl 14:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment fair enough! I'll give it another try - I've redone the picture and the current version is imo much better than my first update. Please have another look, @Hubertl et al. Thanks --Martin Falbisoner 15:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Changed to  Support with the last result. BTW, it´s a great motif, this Volksgarten, Martin. I spent days there, because it´s just a short distance from were I live. And I learned a lot, how to manage those kind of motifs. --Hubertl 06:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Much improved from the first version and quite good. -- Ikan Kekek 09:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Lüdinghausen,_Jüdischer_Friedhof_--_2016_--_3655.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Jewish Cemetery in Lüdinghausen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Good focus to main object, but sky is overexposed and spoil the photo. --Michielverbeek 06:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Fixed I'd tried to fix this. Would you please so kind and check the image again? Thank you. --XRay 05:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed, it is looking much better and I don't see any reason for declining --Michielverbeek 05:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:29._Ulica_-_Krakowski_Teatr_Tańca_-_Estra_&_Andro_-_20160708_2649.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Cracow Dance Theatre in the show "Estra & Andro" at 29. ULICA – The International Festival of Street Theatres in Kraków --Jakubhal 21:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Nice action shot sharp and all, but all the cut things on the right side as opposed to the extra space on the left really spoil the picture. I doubt very much that this is salvageble since any cropping would cut off other things. Pity. --W.carter 08:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, don't see any problem with the composition --Moroder 18:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose After thinking about it for a while, I'm coming down on the side of W.carter with a weak oppose vote. The shot is difficult given the movement, but the dancer on the right is cut tightly as well as being out of focus. It's a shame given the quality of the rest of it, so I can only echo the first reviewer: pity.--Peulle 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Face of the main person in the center of the image out of focus. Sorry, I like the composition very much, colors and lighting are good and the action is really great captured. But the point of sharpness is somewhat random. Pity. --Smial 09:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Ps: Such scenes sometimes demand surprisingly high ISO settings to get short exposure times.
  • Mild  Support - You folks are really tough customers on this one! Looking at this not at full size but a full-page size on my monitor, it's a very good composition that really captures the action and sense of motion well. I, too, wish the blonde dancer weren't cropped at the right, but I think this picture captures the essence of the dance quite well enough to merit being featured. -- Ikan Kekek 08:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, you are the one who started the "Are QIC standards high enough?" thread on the QIC talk page... ;-) I think that the same comments that are made here, would pop up again if it was ever nominated as an FPC. cart-Talk 08:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Yes, I did, but I seem to have discovered that the answer is that the standards on quality are lower here. I would not vote to feature this picture. -- Ikan Kekek 08:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Villa_Carlotta_3469.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Villa Carlotta --Hamster28 07:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The sky is overexposed, is there a way to get back the detail reducing the highlights? Poco a poco 20:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable, Light but not burned out. Overall high enough quality imo.--ArildV 17:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support If the both of you can not decide: discuss--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 16:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I was about to say the same; let's go to CR. @Hamster28:, please have a look at the review and see if you wish to make any changes to the image.--Peulle 17:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 19:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Dahlia 'Happy Days' in Jardin des Plantes de Toulouse 03.jpgEdit

  • Nomination Dahlia 'Happy Days' in Jardin des Plantes de Toulouse. By --Tournasol7 21:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 22:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree, nothing is sharp --A.Savin 11:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree; the DoF is not deep enough so there is very few things sharp in this shot.--Peulle 09:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 06:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)