Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

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]] 19:10, 20 July 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.


July 20, 2017Edit

July 19, 2017Edit

July 18, 2017Edit

July 17, 2017Edit

July 16, 2017Edit

July 15, 2017Edit

July 14, 2017Edit

July 13, 2017Edit

July 12, 2017Edit

July 11, 2017Edit

July 10, 2017Edit

July 9, 2017Edit

July 7, 2017Edit

July 6, 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: MGA 1600 Coupé (2017-07-01 Sp).JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination MG A 1600 Coupé from 1959/60 at “Europa Klassik” in Andernach on the Rhine -- Spurzem 20:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Category still not fixed --A.Savin 21:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @A.Savin: Sagen Sie bitte endlich, was Sie haben wollen. Es muss etwas sein, wofür sich außer Ihnen niemand interessiert; aber ich möchte es wissen. -- Spurzem 22:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The category should have all necessary parent categories; that are to be related to the city, the event, the year. Otherwise no one can find the category and, as a result, the photo either. See COM:Categories (there is German version) --A.Savin 22:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I did. So what? --A.Savin 11:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO OK, categories too. --XRay 10:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support alle notwendigen Kategorien vorhanden. --Ralf Roletschek 15:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Tsungam 06:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Glenfinnan_Monument.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination The Glenfinnan Monument --DeFacto 20:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Monument is not straight, please think about the verticals --Michielverbeek 20:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • That's the impression which you will have standing near by the monument.
  •   Support for me. -- Spurzem 20:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment, Michielverbeek: I think looking up from this close a small amount of perspective convergence is necessary to avoid an unnatural appearance. DeFacto 21:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 08:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Rolling_Racers_-_Moment_of_inertia.gifEdit

 

  • Nomination 3D animation for moments of inertia --Geek3 15:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 15:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for discussion; it's below the 2MP limit - does it hit the exception in the guidelines? "This rule exclude images computer generated and constructed using a free licensed source code available in the image description."--Peulle 21:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Most QI and FP gifs are well below 2MP simply because they are many pictures stacked. Most normal software can't even produce complicated gifs as big as 2MP and the wiki software also distort the color in large gifs when they are shown in thumb. Please take a look at Commons:Featured pictures/Animated, one of the gif FPs there is only 280 × 233 pixels. If you are uncertain about how to judge a photo, it is always good to have a look at the corresponding FP category, many of those are also QIs. --W.carter 08:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
So we judge them individually as we would any other picture? A gif of 10 x 10 pxl I would consider too small to offer sufficient detail, but we can promote gifs that have sufficient detail even when below 2MP? This one is borderline, IMO; I would have liked it to be a bit larger so we could see better what was going on.--Peulle 13:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
This is actually a rather complicated gif, it is made up from 105 images whereas most normal good gifs are made up of 10-35 images. That is why it has to be made this small. When judging a gif, you need to look at both the "picture" like any normal photo but also look at how many images it is composed of and how it displays on the screen. The movement should be smooth and not jerk around too much. You can compare this QI gif with this non-QI gif. In the jellyfish gif you can see how the color becomes distorted when viewed in anything but full size, it is probably almost too big for a proper gif QI since you have to click for full size view to see it at its best. Most veiwers don't bother doing that with gifs. --W.carter 13:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frze 08:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --W.carter 08:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 08:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File: Kreidler Eigenbau, Cockpit (2017-06-11 Sp).JPGEdit

 

  • Nomination Cockpit of self built racing motorcycle based on Kreidler -- Spurzem 13:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 13:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Category still not fixed --A.Savin 21:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frze 08:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 15:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 08:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Common_brimstone_(Gonepteryx_rhamni)_female_Estonia.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Common brimstone (Gonepteryx rhamni) female, Estonia --Charlesjsharp 22:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Vengolis 00:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Low quality image, sorry. Blown white and unsharp, especially on head -- George Chernilevsky 15:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment New version uploaded. Charlesjsharp 20:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 08:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? George Chernilevsky 16:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Frappé.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination greek Frappé --Kritzolina 05:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment chromatic aberrations need removing. Also:   Question is the glass really bent in that shape?--Peulle 19:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The glass is really bent in that shape. But regarding the chromatic aberrations: since I pride myself in having QIs that are not tampered with, I will just let it go. --Kritzolina 04:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose OK, that's a pity since it's a nice image - declining then because of the CA on top of the straw.--Peulle 12:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Despite a minor flaw still QI 4 me. --Palauenc05 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO the CA is very, very slight, OK for me. --Basotxerri 07:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As Basotxerri -- Spurzem 08:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 07:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Malabar_lark_Galerida_malabarica_from_Kaas_Plateau_DSC3236.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Malabar lark Galerida malabarica from Kaas Plateau --PJeganathan 09:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 22:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I edit conflicted this promotion...I was declining it because of the composition/crop...One's eyes are drawn to the blurry flowers, not the bird, which is too low in the photo. I've tagged for discussion. PumpkinSky 22:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Those flowers are kept in the frame essentially to show the habitat and especially the Kaas Plateau which is a world heritage site and known for Smithia flowers. Just by looking at the flowers one can (people who know these landscapes) roughly say from where the image was taken--PJeganathan 09:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with PumpkinSky regarding the crop; I also feel that it is over-saturated and possibly too dark; I have uploaded a possible edit here:   --Alandmanson 12:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I could support the alternate. PumpkinSky 12:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks for this Alandmanson. Do I have to repeat what you did with the image and upload it again? or no need? --PJeganathan 18:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
        • No need to repeat (although you or others may prefer a different crop or colour adjustment), but submission of the edit would presumably be needed if you want QI assessment.--Alandmanson 05:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
          • My suggestion, let this nom get declined. Upload a cropped version like Alandmanson's but bring the crop in so the two yellow flowers on the right can't be seen. Upload it either as a separate file or as a mod of the current nom. PumpkinSky 20:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 07:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:De Meije, rivier De Meije bij Loonspuitbedrijf Kerkvliet BV foto5 2017-07-09 09.52.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination De Meije-NL, river de Meije near Loonspuitbedrijf Kerkvliet BV --Michielverbeek 23:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Disturbing foreground objects, sorry. --Peulle 14:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It is a very small river that is used for recreation (nearly not for commercial activities); I think the foreground objects emphasize this possibility and really add something to the composition --Michielverbeek 15:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Then the boats should have been included in the image, IMO, and not cut off like this. We'll see if other people have different opinions.--Peulle 15:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support o.k. for me.--Ermell 19:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky 22:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Alchemist-hp 22:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Odenplan_station_July_2017_01.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Odenplans pendelstågsstation (Odenplan commuter train station). --ArildV 18:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Too much noise --Berthold Werner 18:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Noise or motion blur. Imo I don't think the noise level is a big problem for a 24mp indoor photo.--ArildV 18:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO it's not an excellent photo, but quality is high enough for Q1. --Michielverbeek 18:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is not too noisy for me. But it seems a bit leaning left. Look at the end of the escalator. And the escalator should be not so bright in the upper part. -- Spurzem 10:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Indeed, it is tilted. To me it is also too noisy, even for this kind of shot, sorry. Poco a poco 16:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info New version uploaded @Poco a poco, Spurzem: --ArildV 20:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    Noise looks much better (tick in the box), but not tilt was applied, Poco a poco 15:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Poco a poco: I did a tilt correction before I uploaded the new version. Did you still think it is a cw or ccw tilt? I don't see it.--ArildV 16:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support the new version. PumpkinSky 21:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per ArildV, --Cvmontuy 04:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Your vote and your explantion don't match! --Berthold Werner 11:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support not so bad.--Ermell 19:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 13:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-01-Katukuvaa_pääkaupungissa_RR73789.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Katukuvaa pääkaupungissa, Pontiac Parisienne --Ralf Roletschek 00:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Vengolis 02:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Missing category, location --A.Savin 03:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment And as usual the file needs a better name, calling all these files "Street view in the capital" even if it is masked by Finish spelling is not QI policy. --W.carter 09:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose title. --Peulle 11:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Gut fotografiert. Im Dateinamen sollte noch der auf dem Fahrzeug ohne Weiteres erkennbare Markenname "Pontiac" genannt warden, wenn möglich auf noch der Typ. Wo das Auto steht, ist unbedeutend. -- Spurzem 11:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Gutes Foto.--Ermell 19:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 08:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-01-Katukuvaa_pääkaupungissa_RR73773.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Katukuvaa pääkaupungissa, Volvo PV444 --Ralf Roletschek 00:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Vengolis 02:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Missing category, location --A.Savin 03:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment And as usual the file needs a better name, calling all these files "Street view in the capital" even if it is masked by Finish spelling is not QI policy. --W.carter 09:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose title.--Peulle 11:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Gutes Foto eines Volvo PV 544. Markenname und Typ sollten ergänzt werden. -- Spurzem 11:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Gutes Foto.--Ermell 19:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frze 07:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 08:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-01-Katukuvaa_pääkaupungissa_RR73730.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Katukuvaa pääkaupungissa, Citroën 2CV --Ralf Roletschek 00:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Vengolis 02:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Missing category, location --A.Savin 03:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose title.--Peulle 11:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ein schöner, schon etwas in die Jahre gekommener Citroën 2 CV. Nur die Farbe gefällt mir nicht, was aber mit der Bildqualität ebenso wenig zu tun hat wie die Lacation. -- Spurzem 11:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Don't think it's essential for QI to locate the car --Moroder 07:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Location added (Finland), but title is unhelpful --Alandmanson 12:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't you know this car? On the other hand: I wonder why it is not said in the file name. -- Spurzem 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell 19:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 07:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-01-Katukuvaa_pääkaupungissa_RR73754.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination: Katukuvaa pääkaupungissa, Chevrolet Caprice --Ralf Roletschek 20:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Where photographed? Any category, geocode, description? --A.Savin 21:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --A.Savin 03:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose title.--Peulle 11:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Schönes Foto eines Chevrolet Caprice; gute Komposition. Wo der Wagen steht, ist unbedeutend. Es ist kein Landschafts- oder Städtebild. -- Spurzem 11:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 07:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 0-8-15 Bild --Frze 08:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --W.carter 07:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-01-Katukuvaa_pääkaupungissa_RR73768.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Katukuvaa pääkaupungissa, Opel Vivaro --Ralf Roletschek 20:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --Vengolis 02:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Missing category, location --A.Savin 03:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose file name.--Peulle 11:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Schönes und qualitativ einwandfreies Bild. Marke und Typ des Fahrzeugs sollten im Dateinamen nachgetragen warden. -- Spurzem 11:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 0-8-15 Bild --Frze 08:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Alchemist-hp 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-01-Katukuvaa_pääkaupungissa_RR73621.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination: Katukuvaa pääkaupungissa, Buick LeSabre --Ralf Roletschek 20:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Where photographed? Any category, geocode, description? --A.Savin 21:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --A.Savin 03:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose file name.--Peulle 11:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Der Dateiname ist für einen Außenstehenden zugegebenermaßen nicht aussagekräftig. Er sollte geändert werden. -- Spurzem 11:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Spurzem--Ermell 18:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 0-8-15 Bild --Frze 08:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 13:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-01-Katukuvaa_pääkaupungissa_RR73619.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination: Katukuvaa pääkaupungissa, Buick LeSabre --Ralf Roletschek 20:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Where photographed? Any category, geocode, description? --A.Savin 21:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --A.Savin 03:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose file name.--Peulle 11:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 11:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell 19:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 0-8-15 Bild --Frze 08:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --W.carter 09:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-02-Maidan_Nezalezhnosti_RR74358.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Maidan Nezalezhnosti in Kiew --Ralf Roletschek 21:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality -- PumpkinSky 01:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dust spot to the left of the flag. Noise. Why F11 and ISO-200, and not F8 and ISO-100? --A.Savin 02:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I can't even see the dust spot. There is some noise but I think it ok for QI. Can't get away from McDonald's!! PumpkinSky 22:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question I'm irritated by that not very subliminal cw-tilt. Could that be fixed? --PtrQs 22:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Links scheint es auf den ersten Blick so aber wenn man sich die Senkrechten am oberen (neuen) Gebäude anschaut, ist es wieder korrekt. Rechts sowieso. --Ralf Roletschek 23:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
    •   Oppose Sorry, but after checking your other images of 'Maidan Nezalezhnosti in Kiew' it looks like a general problem: Wether it's a distortion of your lens (which does not look very sharp, btw), or they all are tilted CW - or some other reviewer can convincingly attest, that there are whole blocks of tilted buildings in Kiew. --PtrQs 20:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 13:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 08:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --PtrQs (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)