Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 09:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


September 22, 2024

September 21, 2024

September 20, 2024

September 19, 2024

September 18, 2024

September 17, 2024

September 16, 2024

September 15, 2024

September 14, 2024

September 13, 2024

September 12, 2024

September 11, 2024

September 10, 2024

September 9, 2024

September 8, 2024

September 7, 2024

September 6, 2024

September 5, 2024

September 4, 2024

September 1, 2024

Consensual review

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".



File:Санкт-Петербург,_особняк_Румянцева,_потолок_(1).jpg

  • Nomination Part of a woooden ceiling. Interiors and exhibition of Rumyantsev mansion. 44, Angliyskaya embankment, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Красный 04:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very unfavorable lighting. Is this really a quality photo? Please discuss. -- Spurzem 15:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Interesting composition. Technically very good except for the quite dark shadows, but that probably reflects the conditions in the building (it is not a perfect photo of the ceiling but it is how a visitor would see it). --Plozessor 09:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It is still QI to me. --Sebring12Hrs 12:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Kenotaph_Ludwigs_des_Bayern_(München)_front.jpg

  • Nomination Kenotaph Ludwigs des Bayern (München) front --AuHaidhausen 14:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lack of details --Uoaei1 05:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I see many details,other opinions? Thank you --AuHaidhausen 11:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main subject is too dark, windows and chandelier are blown out. Background appears somehow distorted (could be a result of strong NR). Might be possible to improve it with better raw conversion (but there's no information about the camera in EXIF data). --Plozessor 07:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: The picture is not perfect. But why shouldn't it be rated as QI like many others? We are generally very generous here. Best regards -- Spurzem 10:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
@Spurzem: Can you explain the point of your comment? Do you think this photo here is good? If so, why aren't you voting? If this is trolling because people disagree with some of your assessments, please remember that you can be blocked for such teasing. Jakubhal 16:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
@Jakubhal: It's very interesting that you immediately respond to ironically worded criticism with a threat. Please take a look at the picture above and you'll understand what I wanted to say. -- Spurzem 17:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The focus is on the knights in the front and the main part of kenotaph is out of focus and blurred. Minor perspective distortion. Lights per Plozessor --Jakubhal 16:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

View of a balcony from the Kasbah of Bouznika

  • Nomination View of a balcony from the Kasbah of Bouznika --User:Mounir Neddi 19:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Your verticals are not vertical and there's a tencency to CA's (easy to correct). Furthermore the use of such high F-numbers (29!) may increase the basic DOF but reduces sharpness. And beside that it highlights dust spots (on top of the column) and demands high ISO numbers (1600) wich in turn increases chromatic noise in the dark areas. Can you fix all these effects? --PtrQs 17:30, 9 September 2024
  • Hi, thanks for your valuable comments. I'm not a photography expert, I didn't understand some things you mentioned. I really tried to make the photo look its best given the weather conditions I took it in. User:Mounir Neddi 12:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a link between f-number, exposure time and ISO speed (sensitivity). You used f/29 which gives extreme depth of field (which is unnecessary here), but as that leaves hardly any light to the sensor, you need extremely high ISO speed (ISO 1600) which resulted in extreme noise. For an object in bright sunlight you should use something like ISO 100. With your camera's APS-C sensor, something like f/3 or f/4 would have been enough to have the building sharp, and maybe something around f/12 would have been enough to have both the building and the background sharp.

File:Országház_(Hungarian_Parliament_Building)(2).jpg

  • Nomination Hungarian Parliament Building (Országház) during sunset. --Lynx1211 16:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose WB is off, left one would be suitable. --PetarM 18:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. The left picture was shot during daylight, this picture was shot in the golden hour before sunset. The WB looks like other sunset photos. --Lynx1211 18:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, beautiful light and I don't understand the WBremark --Michielverbeek 05:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 06:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Golden hour. Good quality. --Milseburg 13:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support ++ per others. --Plozessor 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others --Jakubhal 18:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Basu_Bati_Courtyard_05.jpg

File:Fenster_mit_Spinnenweben_und_Autoreifen_20240901_HOF0692-HDR_RAW-Export.jpg

  • Nomination Spider webs with windows and tire, colored. --PantheraLeo1359531 11:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Chroma and luminance noise --MB-one 09:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
     Not done in a week.--Peulle 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --PantheraLeo1359531 06:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Support Looks good to me now. --MB-one 13:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 13:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Fisherman's bike on Manisman beach

  • Nomination Fisherman's bike on Manisman beach in Mohammedia. --User:Mounir Neddi 13:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Too bright and please, don't overcatorize, see COM:OVERCAT --Poco a poco 16:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the note, i fixed the problem.
    It's then a good habit to upload the improved version :) --Poco a poco 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Reach fisermans there, with SPD pedals on road bike. Fine with me, sharp, just colors could be... --Mile (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are chromatic aberrations that could do with some cleaning up.--Peulle 07:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Mile (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:D-4-71-117-12_Ortskreuz_Bischberg,_1876.jpg

  • Nomination Crucifix, so-called village cross, 1876, in Bischberg --Plozessor 03:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • For now  Oppose. The cross and the house wall are an unnatural yellow. The fact that it is a little crooked seems to correspond to reality. But the color would have to be corrected if the photo is to be a QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem: I think the colors weren't too far from reality, but I've adjusted them a bit so that now they should be realistic. --Plozessor 06:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The image is still very yellow. Compare here; these are probably the real colors. -- Spurzem 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Spurzem: There's no link behind your "Compare here". I think the current colors are ok, maybe you still had the old version in cache? Let's hear other opinions. --Plozessor 04:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: Sorry, I forgot to add the link. Please look here: [1] and [2]. Best regards -- Spurzem 14:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
The photo at Google StreetView is grossly overexposed, but the cross is yellowish there. It is easily possible that Tilman's photos have wrong white balance (he might just have used the house as reference). --Plozessor 03:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support May be it was the sun set. And yellow or not, it's good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 06:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo taken (according to metadata) in the winter, so with a very low sun (hence warm colors). To me, changing the white balance to pretend the photo was taken at a different time of day/year is unacceptable. Jakubhal 12:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Arc_de_Diane_in_Cahors_02.jpg

  • Nomination Arc de Diane in Cahors (by Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 08:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but WB is not perfect and also the arc looks distorted. Please discuss --Екатерина Борисова 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, the quality could be better, and the resolution is also quite small for this camera.--Peulle 10:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is not great, 1/500 sec. and the resulting ISO800 doesn't make sense for a static subject. --Trougnouf 19:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Trougnouf 19:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Acueducto,_Segovia,_España,_2024-06-14,_DD_15.jpg

  • Nomination Acueducto, Segovia, España, 2024-06-14 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 08:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 11:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please discuss. I don't find all those insect-spots or unsharp birds okay for QI. --Milseburg 14:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, those are swallows, I believe. The long exposure may not have been the right choice for this shot, as it also affects the people.--Peulle 07:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Better now. Some are left, but I stop opposing. --Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Seattle,_September_7,_2024_-_316.jpg

  • Nomination Hills of Eternity Cemetery, Seattle --Another Believer 00:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ezarate 18:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed --Jakubhal 19:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal, and the perspective isn't great / should be corrected. --Trougnouf 19:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Trougnouf 19:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Новгород,_музей_«Витославлицы»_03.jpg

  • Nomination Vitoslavlitsy Museum of Wooden Architecture, Novgorod --Vsatinet 18:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I think the tree here is rather disturbing, sorry (Мне кажется дерево портит всю композицию кадра – непонятно на что смотреть, на заслонённую церковь или на частично обрезанное дерево). --Красный 11:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Да, вы правы (Yes, you're right). --Vsatinet 17:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 14:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me also --Jakubhal 19:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Plozessor 04:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

File:National_Bullriding_Championship_Finals_2024-104A3770.jpg

  • Nomination Flag girls entering the arena at the Silver Dollar Fairgrounds in Chico, California, at the beginning of the National Bullriding Championship Finals --Frank Schulenburg 04:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Blurry and unsharp.--Peulle 11:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Available light action shot, good enough for an A4 size printout. --Smial 12:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support A great scene whose technical limitations don't even show up on a printout. I tested it today and made an A3 color print with our large laser printer: the result is solid and suitable for print products. --Radomianin 10:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, the sharpness could be better, but still very interesting photo, with quality enough for QI --Jakubhal 16:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Radomianin 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:National_Bullriding_Championship_Finals_2024-104A3912.jpg

  • Nomination One of the first round contestants of the National Bullriding Championship Finals 2024, at the Silver Dollar Fairgrounds in Chico, California --Frank Schulenburg 04:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Blurry and unsharp. I know capturing moving creatures like this is difficult, but even the people in the background are unsharp.--Peulle 11:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. Available light acction shot, good enogh for an A4 size printout, though ISO12800 seems to be the useful limit for this camera type. --Smial 12:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support per Smial. I also printed this image in color on an A3 laser printer, which has more technical weaknesses, but the result is still acceptable for reproductions. --Radomianin 10:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Radomianin 14:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Euromouse at Eispalast in 2003.jpg

  • Nomination Ice sculpture of Euromouse at the Jungfraujoch Ice Palace in 2003 --Mike Peel 07:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Only 1 MP. --Plozessor 03:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
That was the full resolution of the camera (1.3MPix), I think 2MPix is a guideline, or can no photos from this camera be QI? Can we discuss? Thanks. Mike Peel 07:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
"Can no photos from this camera be QI [in the year 2024]" - Yes, that's how I see it. But let's hear other opinions. --Plozessor 06:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Btw, "Old photos" is not an adequate filename for a QI too. --Plozessor 06:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
File renamed. Let's see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel 09:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Below minimum size requirement, I don't think it falls within the exceptions to the rule. --C messier 18:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info OK, I have a bit of info for those who may be interested: 1) Yes, this is below the minimum size requirement, which may be grounds for decline in itself. It's not absolutely set in stone, as the Guideline says that the image "should" have more than 2MP, but it's still generally regarded as a lower limit. 2) One thing that might count in its favour is that we are not judging all images according to current technical standards. If you look in the guidelines, it states that: "The purpose of quality image status is to recognize that at the moment of creation, a Commons user skillfully achieved a desirable level of quality". In other words, we can judge whether we think this image was good for 2003.--Peulle 06:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, it is a useful shot, but below the QI requirements. Oldest cameras could create a 640 x 480 shot only (0.29 MP). Should they also be assigned a QI? If we compare it with the requirements of commercial photo banks, now it is 4 MP minimum for Shutterstock etc. To print an A4 magazine cover at 300 dpi, about 8.38 MP is required. -- George Chernilevsky 06:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- George Chernilevsky 06:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Langenlois_Kirche_Flügelaltar_Barbara_02.jpg

  • Nomination Saint Barbara at the winged altar of the parish church Langenlois, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 03:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough in the bottom, look to the hand --Michielverbeek 04:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough / lack of DoF. --Plozessor 05:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough for an A4 size printout. Nice lighting and composition. --Smial 22:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose At the limit, but the right hand (right for the statue) isn't sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 09:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice picture. The right hand is sharp enough for me, especially since it only makes up an insignificant part of the subject. -- Spurzem 21:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough quality. ReneeWrites 22:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)