[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]] 21:36, 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 29, 2024

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 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:Niasviž_Corpus_Christ_Church_Interior_2023-07-03_6275.jpg

  • Nomination Church of the Corpus Christi in Niasviž, Niasviž, Belarus‎. --Mike1979 Russia 07:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Benjism89 12:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The upper part of the altar is much too bright. For me it is not a QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem, upper part is overexposed / burned / too bright, can probably be solved with better raw conversion and/or a brightness gradient in post-processing. --Plozessor 05:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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)
  • Sorry, not convinced. Would have been better with lower ISO and longer exposure. But let's hear other opinions. --Plozessor 05:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @Plozessor: These small birds do not sit still while foraging upside down. Longer exposure would have resulted in blurry image. --Tagooty 15:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 12:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:24, 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)
  •  Support per George Chernilevsky. --Smial 08:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:23, 28 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)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

20240920_53rd_Street_Hyde_Park_Chicago_near_equinox_stacked_rotated_and_cropped.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:51, 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)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate lighting. --Smial 08:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:27, 28 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)