[go: up one dir, main page]

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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]] 21:24, 30 October 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).


October 28, 2024

October 27, 2024

October 26, 2024

October 25, 2024

October 24, 2024

October 23, 2024

October 22, 2024

October 21, 2024

October 20, 2024

October 19, 2024

October 18, 2024

October 17, 2024

October 16, 2024

October 15, 2024

October 14, 2024

October 13, 2024

October 11, 2024

October 8, 2024

October 4, 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:Velvet-fronted_Nuthatch_Sasatgre_Oct24_A7CR_03748.jpg

  • Nomination Velvet-fronted nuthatch (Sitta frontalis) perched upside down, glowing in setting sun light, Dopatchi Homestay, Sasatgre --Tagooty 00:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Sorry, too noisy due ISO 4000. --Plozessor 03:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Plozessor: ✓ Done I have applied NR. Please review the new version. --Tagooty 04:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Canis_lupus_familiaris,_Neuss_(DE)_--_2024_--_0010.jpg

  • Nomination Educational assistance dog (Labrador) --A. Öztas 13:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Unfortunately lack of DoF (the culms are sharp but the dog isn't) --Plozessor 04:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
     Support The head is sharp and in focus, low DOF is acceptable here --George Chernilevsky 08:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor. Full body should be in focus. --Sebring12Hrs 09:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Nieborów_2023_17_Palace_Park_Lake.jpg

  • Nomination Nieborów Palace Park Lake Reflection --Scotch Mist 06:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too soft imo --MB-one 18:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review - certainly the trees as well as their reflections could be sharper but perhaps we can get some other opinions on whether this 'reflective image' merits QI? --Scotch Mist 10:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Sharpness is fine. Shadows could be a bit brighter and sky could be darker, but I guess that's due to the weather conditions. --Plozessor 07:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO good enough, but Category:Nieborów should be removed because it is in the category tree two levels below Category:Park of Nieborów Palace (overcategorization). --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for your comment! --Scotch Mist 23:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

20240920_53rd_Street_Hyde_Park_Chicago_near_equinox_stacked_rotated_and_cropped.jpg

  • Nomination This image is my first attempt to contribute an image that is composed from exposure w:bracketing and using w:compositing techniques. These techniques were required because composing a w:Diffraction spike requires w:exposure compsensation choices that crush blacks in some bracket elements and blow out whites in others. I could actually use some feedback on my use of these techniques.--TonyTheTiger 17:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  OpposeI think you did well with a difficult subject. Can you lift the trees at the right any? They're kind of a dark blob. --Acroterion 01:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Acroterion: what does the term lift mean? Do you want me to crop them out or lighten them up? I was thinking cropping might eliminate the moving car. Thoughts-TonyTheTiger 14:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Acroterion: I don't know if MS paint is lossless, but I had a chance to recrop two versions File:20240920 6-41PM stacked R6 0341-0343 rotated 15.56 recropped 3x2.jpg and File:20240920 6-41PM stacked R6 0341-0343 rotated 15.56 recropped 4x3.jpg.-TonyTheTiger 07:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry it took so long to get back;I meant lightening the shadows. You should resubmit one of the new files I think, since the crop takes out the dark mass of trees on the right. --Acroterion 10:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Acroterion: I have nominated 4x3 version and mentioned you in the nomination.-TonyTheTiger 04:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  SupportGood quality. For me, the trees on right allow to balance the left side which is darker. However, you should rename the file so it is more descriptive : COM:FN --Wikisquack 20:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    User:Wikisquack, before I go through that effort, I have swapped the other version in for this one at all 3 WP uses. Is it necessary for a file to be in use to be a quality image?-TonyTheTiger 07:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    Well I found this image a home at w:Golden hour (photography), so I renamed it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comments regarding consensual review: Note that after a cropped version of this image (File:20240920 53rd Street Hyde Park Chicago near equinox stacked rotated and recropped 4x3.jpg) was promoted, I got the positive comment above by Wikisquack, so I am attempting to determine if both versions should be promoted. Since there was talk about lightening this, I am also demonstrating what I perceived as less desirable composites. This is a composite of the +1 and +3 elements of a 7-image -3 to +3 w:Autobracketing sequence. I think this is better than the +2 and +3 composite File:20240920 6-41PM stacked R6 0342-0343 rotated 15.56.jpg and the +1, +2 and +3 composite File:20240920 6-41PM stacked R6 0341-0342-0343 rotated 15.56.jpg in my mind because of the shape of the w:Sunburst/and its w:diffraction spikes and as well as some color hue issues. Results might be better with better software, but I use the free Canon (Digital Photo Professional) software that limits autobracket compsites to 3 source files.-TonyTheTiger 05:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Different developments of the same photo should not all be promoted to QI status. If we were to allow that, it would be difficult to draw the line. How much development would be enough? Eventually, we could end up getting fifteen different versions of the same image; cropped, noise-reduced, black/white...--Peulle 13:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle. --Sebring12Hrs 20:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Lake_Irene_Rocky_Mountain_National_Park_2024.jpg

  • Nomination Lake Irene in Rocky Mountain National Park --Nv8200pa 12:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Composition is kind of awkward with the cut off lake and trees. Would be improved by being either (a) farther away from the lake, so you can view the entire lake at once, or (b) closer to the lake and showing the horizon --Buidhe 03:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I thought the trees framed the lake nicely, but I can see your point. Nv8200pa 10:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Who keeps sending images to CR without any comments as to why? I'm half a mind to just overrule and decline at this point...--Peulle 07:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nobody did that. However, Buidhe set the image to "/Discuss" when adding the comment and you added the opposing vote. @Buidhe: Please don't send anything to CR unless there is a prior vote that you disagree with. Just adding the first review and sending an image to CR is against the rules. Thanks --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition might be acceptable as it is, though it is obviously either downscaled or (probably) cropped. Would like it more with less tight upper crop (more of the trees and sky visible). However, it seems also overprocessed/overcontrasted and tilted. --Plozessor 04:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Gädheim_Mariä_Himmelfahrt_Altar_HRS-20241020-RM-161354.jpg

  • Nomination Altar in the Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in Gädheim --Ermell 07:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 07:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much chroma on the sculpture on the top right & left, tablecloth of both altars. Flowers on the right have variable sharpness. ReneeWrites 10:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done
    Better now?--Ermell 22:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful and good -- Spurzem 08:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Plozessor 04:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Cow_Nokrek_Daribokgre_West_Garo_Oct24_A7CR_03627.jpg

  • Nomination Bull swishing its tail, Nokrek Biosphere Reserve, Daribokgre Community Reserve --Tagooty 00:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but most parts of the cow are blurry --Екатерина Борисова 15:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I must agree.--Peulle 07:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина. --Plozessor 04:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Bad_Breisig-Waldorf,_katholische_Kirche_Sankt_Remaklus_Dm_IMG_2509_2024-06-02_17.05.jpg

  • Nomination Waldorf in Rheinland Pfakz, catholic church: Kirche Sankt Remaklus --Michielverbeek 04:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Underexposed. --Kallerna 07:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Stronger exposure of main object ✓ Done --Michielverbeek 06:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Still too dark IMO (look w/ a white frame and/or at the histogram), I'd add almost 1 ev. --Trougnouf 13:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark, considering that it was taken during sunshine on a summer day. --Plozessor 04:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

File:20211029_Ludwigspark_Malstatt_01.jpg

  • Nomination The Ludwigspark in Saarbrücken-Malstatt in Autumn --FlocciNivis 16:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Underexposed IMO. I hope details aren't lost in dark areas. --Benjism89 21:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ptrump16 05:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral for now, changing to discuss as first comment has not been addressed --Jakubhal 05:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    Exposure is not determined by minimal bark of a tree trunk when photographing a forest. The photo is exposed adequately for the light available for the subject: the changing leaves.. --Ptrump16 16:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've adjusted the exposure now. Thank you for the feedback --FlocciNivis 11:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok, for me now Jakubhal 14:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 16:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Better now, thannks. --Benjism89 19:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Plozessor 04:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Mont_Blanc_2011.jpg

  • Nomination Mont Blanc (by Kristoferb) --Kristoferb 14:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GiovanniPen 16:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise and vignetting --Jakubhal 17:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. --Sebring12Hrs 09:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is from 2011, but still it is too noisy for such a bright scene in sunshine. --Plozessor 04:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Morning_in_Pyongyang.jpg

  • Nomination Sunrise in Pyongyang, North Korea (by Kristoferb) --Kristoferb 13:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Please categorize this picture. Interesting composition but we need to have a little more light and details outside the sky, and less noise. --Benjism89 21:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion and chromatic aberration --Jakubhal 17:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I could even accept the exposure because it has some atmosphere, but the picture definitely needs perspective correction and categorization.--Plozessor 04:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Porsche_Macan_4_IMG_2159.jpg

  • Nomination Porsche Macan 4 in Filderstadt --Alexander-93 15:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Ok imo. --ArildV 10:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The focus is a little bit borderline, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 17:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Given the resolution, I find the image sharpness acceptable, in any case good enough for an A4 printout. The image composition also stands out pleasantly from many other parking lot photos. Unfortunately, the rear window and roof are overexposed; if something could be done to improve this, I would support the candidate. --Smial 12:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 06:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Renault_Master,_Busworld_Europe_2023,_Brussels_(P1140367).jpg

  • Nomination Renault Master by Gépébus at Busworld Europe 2023 --MB-one 10:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Is there a way to photograph it with a less busy background? --Buidhe 05:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok to me. --Trougnouf 13:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I would say that's not possible. It is what it is.--Peulle 13:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Trougnouf 13:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Heidelberg,_Schlosshof.jpg

  • Nomination Heidelberg castle, courtyard --Plozessor 02:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Person in left bottom corner spoils the composition --Michielverbeek 06:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree, what do others think? @Michielverbeek: If you stay with your opinion, please decline it so that I can send it to discussion. --Plozessor 14:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cut off person in bottom right corner. I'm not too bothered by the left; it's hard to avoid people in public locations.--Peulle 08:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
@Peulle: Cropped the poor guy off. --Plozessor 19:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Peulle 06:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Tussen_Leeheim_en_Wolfskehlen,_standbeeld_bij_ingang_Kiawah_Golfpark_Riedstadt_IMG_1242_2024-05-23_11.57.jpg

  • Nomination between Leeheim and Wolfskehlen in Hessen, statue at the entry of Kiawah Golfpark Riedstadt --Michielverbeek 06:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: too soft IMO. --Peulle 06:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I will redevelop the photo Tuesday or Wednesday and hope it's looking better --Michielverbeek 07:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok to me. --Ermell 08:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I wait a while for more reviews --Michielverbeek 06:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. --MB-one (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft and grainy at the same time. Probably fixable with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 13:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I made ✓ Done a new development, please review --Michielverbeek 20:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it's no longer grainy but even more soft than before. And it has a white corner (upper left). --Plozessor 10:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC) Sorry, I have made an uploading mistake --Michielverbeek 20:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For a static subject in good lighting, too soft. A slower shutter speed and smaller aperture would help. --Tagooty 10:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC) It was indeed not a good idea to use a low fnumber. Thanks for all reviews --Michielverbeek 20:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Tagooty 10:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)