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]] 14:04, 22 September 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.

September 22, 2017Edit

September 21, 2017Edit

September 20, 2017Edit

September 19, 2017Edit

September 18, 2017Edit

September 17, 2017Edit

September 16, 2017Edit

September 15, 2017Edit

September 14, 2017Edit

September 13, 2017Edit

September 12, 2017Edit

September 11, 2017Edit

September 10, 2017Edit

September 09, 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 Vesuvius seen from Naples --Livioandronico2013 20:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Moroder 20:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment No offence meant, - but I'd like to read more ratings to the sharpness of this image. --PtrQs 00:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment No offence at all but imo sharpness is becoming a tedious issue on QIC while image content, composition etc seem of no value --Moroder 14:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment Maybe that's because QI is mostly for technical quality? We have FP for image content and VI for value :) 20:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image is overprocessed, probably in-camera noise reduction? Right part is blurred. 20:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Lawachara National Park, Kamalganj, Maulvi Bazar. By User:Pallabkabir --Masum-al-hasan 10:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. Nominate it for FP also ! --PetarM 10:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   OpposeSorry, Nice moment and composition, but the image itself is very unsharp. --Shishir 14:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Shishir.--Peulle 17:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Shishir. -- Ikan Kekek 07:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Rue Gonzague Florens in Conques 04.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Rue Gonzague Florens in Conques, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 13:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   CommentPlease, clean noise from sky. Also, there aer some dark dust spots on sky. --Nino Verde 05:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   Not done in a week. PumpkinSky 01:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 21:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The car is a bit disturbing to me, but overall good enough for QI. --Milseburg 13:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good photo, but car spoils the photo --Michielverbeek 05:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment A crop of the lower part may help, most of the car can be removed. --Palauenc05 10:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination The Puez-Geisler Nature Park in Val Gardena in the Dolomites - South Tyrol --Moroder 06:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   CommentThe focus seems to be too far in the foreground. The mountains in the middle are not as sharp as they should be.--Ermell 12:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for the comment, what do you want me to do?--Moroder 14:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe you could try sharpen it a bit. The motive is gorgeous.--Ermell 16:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I tried sharpening it but didn't like it. IMO it's sharp enough. If you like you could decline it and I'll move it to CR? I don't want to resize it either. Cheers --Moroder 16:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too unsharp IMO.Sorry. --Ermell 20:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Moroder 04:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe the lens is just not good enough for such a high-resolution camera? Or maybe image is affected by diffraction because of small aperture used on such small pixels? Photo is nice and looks good on small previews, but blurry on full size view. 22:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment It's a 2000 Euro Nikon lens 24/70/2,8. The aperture is optimal f/11 (see here) --Moroder 09:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stitching error on one of the peaks - see annotations. Btw: Could it be, that - spite of your expensive gear - you loose a lot of sharpness and contrast along the stitching process? --PtrQs 17:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --XRay 08:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Maybach G 650 Landaulet Ersatzrad IMG 0755.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Wheel of the Mercedes-Maybach G 650 Landaulet at IAA 2017 --Alexander-93 14:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good composition, perhaps a bit over sharpened but QI for me -- Spurzem 19:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not for me; the centre is out of focus.--Peulle 20:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Main subject is not in focus. 19:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp, strong CAs on the black rubber --PtrQs 20:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp/Main subject not in focus. --Sandro Halank 22:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 22:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Bugatti Chiron 0-400-0 tire IMG 0726.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Wheel of the Bugatti Chiron at IAA 2017 --Alexander-93 14:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough, I'm afraid. --Peulle 15:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive image of this wheel and sharp enough for QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image is not sharp, may be not in focus. 19:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp, strong (sorry, mixed it up with the Maybach wheel) CAs on the black rubber --PtrQs 20:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp. --Sandro Halank 22:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 22:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Billa in Graz --Ralf Roletschek 12:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the pole in the very middle destroys any composition and the darkening of the sky is too abvious and brutally executed. --PtrQs 18:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment So I'm the only one who thinks the top of the building being dimmed by the sloppy dimming of the sky and who feels that the top of the pole is conspicuously darker than the rest of it? And ain't that what makes the technical 'Quality'? --PtrQs 20:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't agree. Composition shows a supermarket in a modern environment so IMO the pole does not destroy anything. Sky is also well done --Michielverbeek 20:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Perfectly acceptable to me, too. And what's wrong with portraying the sky as it was? This isn't FPC, where the type of weather is judged for "wow" or the lack thereof; this is QIC, where we simply judge the quality of the photograph. In the context of QIC, any weather is just as good as any other, if the picture is well taken. -- Ikan Kekek 21:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Slight perspective correction may be needed for the right part of image 05:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit noisy but still o.k.--Ermell 07:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 15:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

File:WAP7 Rayalseema express 03092017.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Rayalseema express being hauled by WAP7 near Lingampally--Nikhil B 02:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO DoF too small, focus problems. --XRay 04:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    @XRay can you please tell me where was the focus missing? IMHO, entire train is in focus. Thanks for the review. --Nikhil B 05:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      Comment IMO the whole train is out of focus. The front isn't sharp auf with f/5.6 the DoF is too small. I've seen the problems with a lot of photographs. May be there is a problem with your lens. But if you think th photograph is OK, please feel free to set it to "discuss". --XRay 10:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC). Ok thanks --Nikhil B 02:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
      Oppose per XRay. Also seems tilted down to the right. -- Ikan Kekek 20:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  Comment I wonder why railroad-related pictures taken by that user look somewhat too smartphony for a real DSLR... Are they cropped too tightly or that problem is caused by a kit lens? It really doesn't look like ISO 200 to me... 02:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC) I don't use bigger lens for taking railroad pictures because they are too noisy and unsharp. I use smaller lens (18-55mm standard kit lens) for rail photography, which means most of my rail photos are cropped heavily. Thanks --Nikhil B 08:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me. I can not see that anything tilts down to the right. -- Spurzem 15:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --PumpkinSky 01:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC))

File:Tachina fly 7954.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Tachinidae --Vengolis 02:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not shar enough for a QI, especially near the head. Also the background seems very much distracting in my opinion. Deepugn 09:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support looks fine to me.--Nikhil B 04:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Deepugn. Good photo, but not quite a QI, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 20:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, main object is over all not sharp enough and the background is quite noisy. --MB-one 21:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for me Bijay chaurasia 08:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek 20:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Kormoran-Insel --Ralf Roletschek 21:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. --Kong of Lasers 23:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 22:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blurred or out of focus. --Nino Verde 09:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing sharp, IMO.--Jebulon 09:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me. This time it seems as we had a decline wave. -- Spurzem 10:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support seems good to me -- Bijay chaurasia 08:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support See above my comment on "sharpness" --Moroder 14:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)



  • Nomination Wind turbines on the island of Fehmarn, Germany --Superbass 21:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment It is a bit blurry. --Kong of Lasers 23:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It is good from my point of view. --Nino Verde 05:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. The unsharp brushwood in the foreground spoils it. --Milseburg 21:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to   Support. There's room for atmospheric pics at QIC, isn't there? -- Ikan Kekek 23:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose per Milseburg.--Peulle 06:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jebulon 01:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Great atmospheric picture (except the plants in the foreground), maybe even FP level for me (except the plants in the foreground) 02:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Other way around --Mile (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good to me. --Sandro Halank 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I support the ghost plants ;-)--Moroder 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)