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]] 02:32, 24 March 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.

March 24, 2017Edit

March 23, 2017Edit

March 22, 2017Edit

March 21, 2017Edit

March 20, 2017Edit

March 19, 2017Edit

March 18, 2017Edit

March 17, 2017Edit

March 16, 2017Edit

March 15, 2017Edit

March 14, 2017Edit

March 13, 2017Edit

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 This is a photo of ASI monument number --Suyash.dwivedi 16:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but there are chromatic aberrations. --A.Savin 15:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The CAs are negligible for me. -- Spurzem 11:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose negligible?? Strong CA. --Carschten 12:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    Negligible for Spurzem are my reviews, that's for sure and meanwhile a well-known old hut. --A.Savin 12:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@A.Savin: I don't like such imputations. -- Spurzem 12:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
de:WP:RTL. --A.Savin 13:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Carschten 12:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination View of theColonna del Leone di San Marco and the Colonna di San Teodoro columns with the Biblioteca Marciana on the Piazzetta San Marco square in Venice --Moroder 07:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment The tops of the columns look distorted, especially the right one. I'm not sure that can be fixed but I'll give you a chance to have a look at it.--Peulle 08:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment That comes with the perspective correction. There is no way to do it differently.
  •   Done Thanks. I've tried a bit of an audacious operation. If you like I can reverse to a version without perspective correction. Cheers --Moroder 08:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I see what you did there - there is now a straight line stitching error in the middle of the image. Honestly, this is really hard; I think possibly unfixable and those colums really are important since they're the subject. That means   Oppose, but I would also really like to hear what other reviewers have to say about it. Going CR for more input from our fellows.--Peulle 10:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Fixed the stitching error. Thanks for the hint --Moroder 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support IMHO, this image has good quality. As I was several times in Venice, I know how hard it is, to get some photos of the two columns without perspective distortion. And this picture is really good. -- Johann Jaritz 17:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me--Ermell 20:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Sandra Robatscher (Platz 2 beim Nationencup-Rennen der Frauen in Altenberg 2017) --Sandro Halank 10:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose That top crop is too tight for my liking. --Peulle 13:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree and ask for discussion. For me it is QI. -- Spurzem 22:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this is a good photo, and especially fun with the snowflakes in the air. I don't have a problem with part of the hat being cropped. -- Ikan Kekek 05:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. Daniel Case 00:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Fondamenta Zattere allo Spirito Santo in Venice. --Moroder 17:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality: sorry, the buildings on the left look blurry. --Peulle 20:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment You are right, on the left it is slightly blurred at full picture size. I look for the opinion of other reviewers. Maybe someone of the reviewers understands how this blur on the edge can happen despite the very expensive Nikon lens. It's not a matter of focusing since the rest of the picture is well focused at a distance of several meters from the camera. I believe the blur on the left is irrelevant and I believe this picture is QI according to QIC guidelines. Cheers --Moroder 22:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Lietadlá Ministerstva vnútra slovenské republiky --Ralf Roletschek 23:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Nice composition, subject sits in focus, nice lighting. Very acceptable grain. --Gorlingor 00:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Another crop of the same picture is already QI. --A.Savin 02:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - As I recall, when you declined a bunch of similar photos of a bird in India, it was clearly established in CR that similarity to other photos is not a usable criterion for declining a QI nomination. That being the case, this is an image of good quality, and therefore, I support. -- Ikan Kekek 02:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not just a similar photo, this is same photo. --A.Savin 14:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Grain acceptable for these lighting conditions. As for multiple versions of images, the Guidelines separate between FP and QI: "Normally there should never be two featured pictures that are just different versions of the same image, (...) There is no restriction on the number of similar quality images (...)"--Peulle 07:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info this are different pictures, see EXIF (F8F0C93348793E571F97A10E98885FB2; 15. Feb. 2017, 17:41:10 / EE9565CFEF0A3FE4286AA3B25A86C823; 15. Feb. 2017, 17:41:09) In background branches left, window right are different - both photos have the full pixel number in width (4288) --Ralf Roletschek 07:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment So, both pictures were taken within 1 second, which means that serial shooting was used. For this kind of motif, I don't understand the real need of serial shooting; albeit I myself occasioinally use it for dynamic motives, e.g. this photo or this one were parts of serial shootings, each are best ones of their series of six, seven, eight,... (my camera can up to ten) shots taken within one second. With that said, serial shooting is indeed a good tool for many dynamic motives to choose the best managed shot. But when someone makes serial shooting of a building, a sculpture, a parking vehicle (like here), so that all photos are actually nothing but duplicates, and then uploads them all, and then wants them all to become QI, this may only have one sense: QI as self-purpose, just to push the QI count to have a babel on one's userpage with a claim like "This user has uploaded 37,421 Quality images on Commons". Anyone who supports such behaviour, apparently hasn't understood what QI/FP is for. One more reason for me to abandon any participation in QIC, just like I have abandoned participating on VIC years ago.. --A.Savin 00:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to add that this photo is insufficiently categorized. This is definitely in contrary with Image guidelines. --A.Savin 00:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The model of plane should be mentioned and categorized, if possible. But your other objection seems to amount to a proposal to change QI rules, based on previous and current discussion. If so, why don't you propose a clear rules change on the talk page? -- Ikan Kekek 04:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand the arguments of A.Savin. I think we have to discuss this. Because this i withdraw at this point? --Ralf Roletschek 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Danube river near Brza Palanka (Брза Паланка), Serbia --Pudelek 20:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Too unsharp in background --Daniel Case 06:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough for a QI IMO --Ermell 20:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Most of the image is borderline quality for me, but I see artifacts (see note) and that takes my total down to an oppose.--Peulle 08:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I tried hard to find the artefacts but didn´t succeed.--Ermell 13:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Did you see the notation? On the lamp post. Weak but visible to me at 100%.--Peulle 13:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  QuestionYou don´t mean the corner of that house behind the lamp?--Ermell 22:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
No, I mean the actual curve of the metal on the lamp post. Am I the only one who thinks that looks a bit jaggedy?--Peulle 23:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Artefakts are usually visible in the whole of the picture and not just in one place IMO--Ermell 07:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 07:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Danube river near Brza Palanka (Брза Паланка), Serbia --Pudelek 20:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   OpposeColors seem unnaturally subdued --Daniel Case 06:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportNothing unusal with the colors for me. --Ermell 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The colors seem acceptable. It was a hazy day. -- Ikan Kekek 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looking at the foreground, I don't see any major colour problems either.--Peulle 08:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I am just used to more saturated, warmer colors for a scene like that. Daniel Case 04:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you should take a trip to the Balkans? :D--Peulle 07:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. It's been a while since I was there. But a fair amount of other photos from there don't seem to go with such subdued color. Daniel Case 00:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Maserati 3500 GT Spyder --Berthold Werner 18:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Tilted CCW, could you correct it, please? --Basotxerri 19:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose  Not done after 8 days--Michielverbeek 08:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  Done now it's done ;-) --Berthold Werner 18:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK now, thank you! --Basotxerri 16:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The persons in behind should not be there but the car is o.k.--Ermell 07:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 16:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)