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]] 11:50, 26 October 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.

October 26, 2016Edit

October 25, 2016Edit

October 24, 2016Edit

October 23, 2016Edit

October 22, 2016Edit

October 21, 2016Edit

October 20, 2016Edit

October 19, 2016Edit

October 18, 2016Edit

October 17, 2016Edit

October 16, 2016Edit

October 14, 2016Edit

October 13, 2016Edit

October 12, 2016Edit

October 11, 2016Edit

October 9, 2016Edit

October 3, 2016Edit

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 Plavečský hrad, v katastrálnom území obce Plaveč, okres Stará Ľubovňa. Prvé zmienky sú z roku 1294. V roku 1856 hrad vyhorel a odvtedy postupne chátral. Od roku 2014 prebiehoa jeho postupná konzervácia a obnova. By User:Salamon.henrich --Мирослав Видрак 08:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Heavy lens flares on the left side and lens coma right of the tower. --Code 16:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It may not be possible to avoid that flare on the left, since there's a strong lamp there, but I see green CA all around the stars.--Peulle 07:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Stoer Head Lighthouse, North West Scotland --DeFacto 21:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a strange gray halo around the silhoutte of the lighthouse building --Poco a poco 21:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    •   Comment, I don't know what the halo is or whether I can remove it - can anyone advise please?. DeFacto 21:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment I think that is what comes from overly aggressive CA correction...--Godot13 03:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support For me OK for QI --A.Savin 23:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   OpposeNot to me, sorry. --Poco a poco 07:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Barely noticeable, I had to stare at it for over a minute before I even knew what he was talking about. --King of ♠ 06:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A.Savin. The halos are quite distractive; thick, brown lines around the edges of the building and chimneys, especially on the right side. It almost looks like somebody went at the image with a pen in Paintbrush.--Peulle 07:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really strange halos. Visible at 100%, pixelpeeping not necessary. --Smial 09:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Great Hall Rotunda, U.S. Custom House. --King of Hearts 04:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose I'm afraid it is too noisy/unsharp. I know, difficult shot, but not a QI to me, sorry --Poco a poco 06:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: Please take a look at the 2000px version, it is pixel-perfect. And this is not the type of easy-to-take picture where anything more than the minimum 2 MP should be demanded. --King of Hearts 06:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Send to CR --Smial 09:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Too unsharp and noisy, but is it truly unimprovable? What happens when you try to sharpen and denoise the photo somewhat? -- Ikan Kekek 08:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm with Poco on this one; as technology improves, standards do as well. More is expected from a QI now than 10 years ago. This then is just too noisy for today's standards. I also think the top crop disqualifies it.--Peulle 17:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek, Peulle: I'm all for increased standards. But what really bugs me is that if I had uploaded a downsampled version, chances are someone would have just taken one look at the 100% version and promoted it. --King of Hearts 03:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
      Comment Perhaps someone would (I wouldn't), but would that make you happy? After all, this isn't a competition where we're trying to get as many QIs as possible, is it? To me, this is about contributing with genuinely good images to the world for free and unlicensed use; if someone here thinks the QI guidelines aren't quite met, that doesn't deter me from continuing those efforts. Keep working. :) --Peulle 07:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 17:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Kolonialforretning Vognmannsgata 9.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Grocer's shop from Vogmannsgata (no: "Wagon man's road") no. 9, Vaterland, Oslo, 1800-1850/ca. 1900. Later moved to the Norwegian Museum of Cultural History. --Peulle 17:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • All nice and good except for the little burned out branches sticking up in the small "sky part". One way of dealing with this is to clone those out entirely. W.carter 19:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I could do that, but since the branches really are there behind the house, are you sure that would make it better?--Peulle 23:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's just one of those little things that's irritating in an otherwise very good pic. I think it would be better to loose them. W.carter 07:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment After thinking about it, I have decided not to clone out the branches behind the house. It would feel like manipulating reality; the branches are there in real life, as a photographer I don't feel comfortable removing things that are actually there. I'd like to hear more opinions in CR; guys, what do you think?--Peulle 13:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, editing out the branches is unnecessary IMO. --Tsungam 07:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Tsungam. I understand cart's point of view, but the problematic area is so small and unemphasized that I consider this a solid QI, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek 08:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough. --Smial 09:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 16:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 16:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination Hamburg-Groß Flottbek, residential building Dürerstraße 5 --Dirtsc 15:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment Clone accident at the cars number plate.--Ermell 16:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's not an accident, it's intentionally done. I try to make all licence plates unreadable, because they are possible personal information about the owner. Greetings --Dirtsc 06:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree with you in terms of the readability but the solution is not very elegant--Ermell 07:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Until now I only found this way to make licence plates unreadable. Maybe that changes, if I'm able to use Photoshop or something like this in the far future. --Dirtsc 06:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, like this it's ruined; we could help out, but we'd need the original version.--Peulle 08:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment No problem and the easiest way if you leave the plate as it originally is.--Ermell 09:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. --Ermell 22:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm sorry, but if you decline it, because I choosed a "not very elegant" way to make the licence plates unreadable, I'll have some more opinions about that. Greetings --Dirtsc 06:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, but I agree with the objections. There has to be a better way to get rid of the letters and numbers on the license plate than by making the car look damaged. Why don't you just keep the basic color and shape of the license plate and clone out the letters and numbers? -- Ikan Kekek 08:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment The recommended way, according to previous discussions, is to keep the color and font of the licence plate but provide it with a new fake number like "ABCDEF", "1234567" or "QWERTY". One user used a version of his user name but that met with some opposition. cart-Talk 09:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I personally don't care if you clone out the number plate or not, but if you do, a better job than this is needed. That car's rear looks completely mangled.--Peulle 12:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As for Peulle. Faking letters and numbers is much work, simple blurring or posterizing should do. --Smial 13:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Smial 13:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)



  • Nomination St Clair Catolic Church in Horodkivka. By User:Balkhovitin --Ahonc 21:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Nice one! --Shishir 3:19 23 October (UTC)
  •   Oppose A black spot to be removed and needs better categories. --C messier 11:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed. Colour saturation way too high, massive sharpening artifacts, tone mapping overdone. --Smial 08:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as SmialUnsigned: someone please claim this vote
  •   Oppose per Smial --Basotxerri 16:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Saturation is on the high side but acceptable to me. --King of ♠ 06:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --King of ♠ 06:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Lower part of Cetho Temple, 2016-10-13.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Lower part of Cetho Temple, Karanganyar Crisco 1492 00:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment IMO the image needs perspective fix, it's leaning out. --XRay 05:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment Barely any straight lines to follow, but I think I've fixed it. Crisco 1492 07:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment Please have a look to the tower at the right. Is this real? --XRay 09:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
        •   Comment I overcorrected last time, but yes, the tower is not quite straight. It is on a slight angle in all of my photographs at Cetho, on both lenses. Crisco 1492 10:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
          •   Comment Have you tried to correct it with Lightroom or ShiftN or a similar tool? --XRay 15:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
            •   Comment Yes, this has gone through lens correction in Lightroom 6 and in Photoshop CC. Crisco 1492 07:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   OpposeSorry, the leaning out tower on the right is too disturbing. If you disagreee, please set to "discuss". --XRay 11:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment As stated, the tower is not straight in real life. Please discuss. --Crisco 1492 06:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very nice temple pic. I take you at your word that the tower does look like this in the flesh. -- Ikan Kekek 09:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid I don't; both masts on the right are leaning, and the one on the far left is leaning the other way. Also, isn't there green CA here? Look at the trees.--Peulle 13:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 13:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Waterwerken bij centrale Malga Mare. Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago del Careser 01.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Waterworks in power station Malga Mare. Mountain hiking of parking in power station Malga Mare to Lago del Careser.--Famberhorst 05:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose A quality photo, but unfortunately the main part (the fallen water) is not sharp enough. A shorter exposure time would have given a better image --Michielverbeek 06:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Without prejudice to your advice, this image as it stands seems fine for QI to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 11:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Given that there is a bit of noise and parts are not quite sharp, I second the oppose by Michielverbeek. --Peulle 16:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Somewhat reddish WB. Noise is regarding the rather high resolution acceptable. We all know (or should...) the "M" is not rocket science in matters of noise, the photographer did nothing wrong. Extensive noise reduction would have the risk of blurring. Better good sharpness, where sharpness is needed. Falling water can be depicted "frozen" with very short exposure time (or flash), it can be depicted totally "floating" with very long exposure time (ND filter, if necessary), and it can be depicted with some blur with middle exposure time to express the moving. That is a matter of taste. Matter of taste belongs to FPC, I believe. I myself would have chosen even a somewhat longer time, perhaps 1/15s or 1/30s to get a bit more blur. -- Smial 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment People, when you change the vote count at the bottom, please add your own signature there as well. Don't just let the previous signature stand.--Peulle 13:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I never knew we were supposed to do that. -- Ikan Kekek 20:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • +1 --Smial 22:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Are we truly supposed to do that? I've noticed that quite a few times, the QICtotal templates are signed by non-voters, and they eventually turn into "Promoted" or "Declined", I think without further effort by the signer? -- Ikan Kekek 03:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the idea is that whenever we do something, we should sign it. That includes editing the "results" line, so we can see when it was done. If an old signature is left at the bottom, it will look like votes have been added after the summary. Oh and in order to execute the decision of the vote (if more than 48 hours have passed since the last vote), simply change "QICtotal" to "QICresult" and change "Discuss" to "Promote" or "Decline". :) --Peulle 12:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Blurring the water at 1/50s is a valid artistic choice. We may disagree with it and prefer a longer or shorter exposure, but save that for FPC. --King of Hearts 06:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --King of Hearts 06:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Tsughrughasheni church.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Tsughrughasheni church -- Beqabai 17:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Sorry, 1/640 and f/3.2--Lmbuga 18:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. I think we should rate the picture and not the exif data and this photograph is QI for me --Ermell 18:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem:   Neutral, but random picture. Clear not QI IMO. I'm not willing to discuss, but "discuss" is a good option--Lmbuga 19:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question What do you mean by "random picture"? By the way, I may abstain from voting on this. The picture of the church seems OK to me, but I'm inordinately bothered by the unsharp area of trees in the middle of the foreground. I'm not sure that's a sufficient reason to oppose, though. -- Ikan Kekek 05:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry Ikan, poor English. Good composition, but taked without addressing the camera settings--Lmbuga 14:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC) See note, please--Lmbuga 14:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry Beqabai, It's not a random picture. --Lmbuga 14:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Pretty difficult for me to decide who is supporting and who is declining it. Please be more accurate! --Hubertl 21:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lower left is completely unsharp, and the culprit seems to be the f/3.2 + overaggressive NR. --King of Hearts 18:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilted (or is it the perspective?), slight purple CA on tower, missing category. Could be fixable, but voting to oppose until remedied.--Peulle 16:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • A weak   Support taking into account some slight problems. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 18:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Spider 9216.jpgEdit


  • Nomination Cheiracanthium, Eutichuridae --Vengolis 01:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 01:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Too glary. -- Ikan Kekek 09:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Vengolis, I'm looking at this photo again. It's pretty good. If you could tone down the glare a little without damaging the resolution of the spider, I'd be happy to support. -- Ikan Kekek 13:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 21:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)