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]] 22:27, 23 April 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.

April 23, 2017Edit

April 22, 2017Edit

April 21, 2017Edit

April 20, 2017Edit

April 19, 2017Edit

April 18, 2017Edit

April 17, 2017Edit

April 16, 2017Edit

April 15, 2017Edit

April 14, 2017Edit

April 13, 2017Edit

April 12, 2017Edit

April 11, 2017Edit

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:View_of_Stockholm-170349.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination View from Stockholm City Hall, Stockholm, Sweden. --Josve05a 04:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 05:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Strong oppose. Insufficient quality. The alignment isn´t correct. And it´s full of artefacts. Especially the sky is very noisy. --Milseburg 13:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Milseburg. -- Ikan Kekek 06:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Milseburg.--Peulle 15:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 07:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

File:2017_Przystanek_kolejowy_w_Ławicy_3.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Ławica train station 2 --Jacek Halicki 08:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment The sky is completely washed out. The other photos at least had some hint of cloud, not this one.--KTC 08:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done--Jacek Halicki 22:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's still completely washed out I'm afraid, so I'll decline. --KTC 18:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree, please discussion --Jacek Halicki 08:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support - the sky does look a bit grey, but looking at the trees in the distance this may be attributed to a cloudy weather effect. Given that everything else in the photo looks good, I'll go with support.--Peulle 15:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Compare with the other two images in the series. [1, 2] There were clouds, but there should also be areas of blue sky. -- KTC (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Not if the whole sky was covered with mist. Since the fog also partly clouds the trees in the far background, I guess that's the case.--Peulle 19:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 07:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Niederlausitz Senftenberg 07-2015 img2 Amtsgericht.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Senftenberg (Brandenburg): courthouse --A.Savin 10:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment The lens flare in the sky should be removed IMO--Ermell 10:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't understand the objection and hereby ask for third opinion. --A.Savin 22:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ... as I can't see any lens flare. @Ermell: Could you mark the lens flare with a note, please? This could make me change my mind and would help to fix the image if necessary. Thanks in advance! --Basotxerri 08:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Thanks Johann Jaritz for the note. --A.Savin 09:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
U r welcome A.Savin-- Johann Jaritz 09:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Johann Jaritz! I thought it was a cloud   --Basotxerri 17:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 09:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--Ermell 10:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good now. -- Ikan Kekek 06:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 06:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Ναός Αγίας Ζώνης, Δαφνές 9177.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Church in Dafnes, Crete. --C messier 08:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose renomination without correction the problems I stated last time (white balance, colour noise in the blue part of the sky) --Carschten 12:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done I made a WB correction, but I can't tell if it is better, in my screen the former WB looked at least reasonable. Also removed some chroma noise. --C messier 19:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Just a little difference, but much better to me now. --Carschten 13:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok to me.--Sandro Halank 11:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - It looks like the church may be leaning up to the right a bit. Does it, or are my eyes being affected in a funny way by the stone supports on the left side? Other buildings, telephone poles, etc. seem to be straight. -- Ikan Kekek 12:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 15:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Metro_de_São_Paulo,_Brazil.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Metro de São Paulo --The Photographer 12:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Rolling stock needs identification --A.Savin 23:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  Done --The Photographer 18:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Billy69150 16:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am really sorry, but before promotion please categorize it properly. There are plenty of subs in Category:Rail vehicles of CPTM; which type of train is on the picture? And no, I don't know it either... --A.Savin 20:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 11:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)