Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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

Nominations

[edit]

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]] 00:01, 12 September 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 12, 2024

[edit]

September 11, 2024

[edit]

September 10, 2024

[edit]

September 9, 2024

[edit]

September 8, 2024

[edit]

September 7, 2024

[edit]

September 6, 2024

[edit]

September 5, 2024

[edit]

September 4, 2024

[edit]

September 3, 2024

[edit]

September 2, 2024

[edit]

September 1, 2024

[edit]

August 31, 2024

[edit]

August 30, 2024

[edit]

August 29, 2024

[edit]

August 27, 2024

[edit]

August 18, 2024

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

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:Langenlois_Kirche_Flügelaltar_Barbara_02.jpg

[edit]

  • 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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Our_Lady_of_Loreto_chapel_in_Poirino_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Our Lady of Loreto chapel in Poirino, Piedmont, Italy. --Tournasol7 04:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Bgag 04:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadows on the building are extremely distracting. The perspective correction was also poorly done. Others may see it differently, but for me the photo is not a quality image. -- Spurzem 15:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main object is partly shadowed by a tree. In this case I just would not try to make this photo because the quality would be too poor --Michielverbeek 20:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support I probably wouldn't have chosen 100% perspective correction here, but slightly less, and I might have tried to make the shadows more plausible by somehow including the trees in the picture. --Smial 22:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Michielverbeek 20:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC))

File:Taj_Mahal_Mosque_A.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mosque at Taj Mahal complex. This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2024. --Rangan Datta Wiki 03:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Minor CA at the edges (though not as strong as in the other picture), left side slightly leaning in, also could be sharper. --Plozessor 03:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Now there's green CA on the right side and purple CA on the left side (see the people). --Plozessor 06:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Taj_Mahal_reflection_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Taj Mahal. This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2024. --Rangan Datta Wiki 03:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Green CA in the left third and purple CA in the right third (see the trees and towers). Must be fixed during raw conversion. And could be a bit sharper. --Plozessor 03:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA is still there (for example, the last complete tree on the right side has purple CA on its left edge and green CA on its right edge). --Plozessor 06:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Летний_сад._Нимфа_воздуха4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nymph of Air statue (detail) in Summer Garden, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 01:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Crop of elbow; ornament on top of head is blurry. Fixable? --Tagooty 01:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 01:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Awaiting response to my comments above --Tagooty 04:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I tried to sharpen the image but I can't do anything with the elbow because this is the original image without any crop. Thanks to everybody for reviews. -- Екатерина Борисова 07:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@Tagooty: Converted your comment to (temporary) oppose per rules (sending promoted picture to discussion -> assuming oppose) --Plozessor (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many NR artifacts, lack of detail and "real" resolution. --Plozessor 06:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor, overporcessed, lost detail --George Chernilevsky 07:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

File:CalRaid_Nutrition_Clinic_in_Fontainhas,_Panaji.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination CalRaid Nutrition Clinic in Fontainhas, Panaji --I.Mahesh 05:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 06:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky is burnt and both buildings look distorted --Екатерина Борисова 01:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, I must say I agree.--Peulle 10:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

File:حجم_شجرة_أرز_مقارنة_بحجم_الإنسان.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cedar tree from the Ouiouane lake in Morocco, --User:Mounir Neddi 09:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too soft and unfortunate crop. Sorry --MB-one 09:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per MB-one, sorry. --Benjism89 20:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry and too tight crop. But why is it here in discussions at all?
  • @Plozessor: Nominator moved it to the CR, I assume he wanted to challenge MB-one's vote. --Benjism89 06:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Ok, he should have added a comment then.
  • Unsigned vote above stricken. Remember to sign your votes and comments, folks! :) --Peulle 07:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oops  Oppose --Plozessor 08:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 08:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Флигель_усадьбы,_Витославлицы,_Новгород.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Outbuilding of the estate in Vitoslavlitsy, Novgorod --Vsatinet 07:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good picture, please fix categorization. --Plozessor 10:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    What issue wth categorization you mean? --Vsatinet 15:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
     Support The non-existing category "WLM/5310014003". --Plozessor 17:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    I can't fix it :-). This category was automatically added when the photo was loaded for WLM Russia competition and WLM Russia team asks not to interfere with their engine. By my understanding it will be fixed after competition end. --Vsatinet 20:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done It can be fixed easily by turning "red" category into hidden one (now not red), so I did it. --Екатерина Борисова 00:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    The image was promoted but after several comments about categorization it seems like unassessed (outlined in blue). Is it now promoted or no? --Vsatinet 20:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
    You must be more patient :) --Екатерина Борисова 00:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
    When you add a comment to a promoted image, it resets to Nomination. Should use manual editing in such cases. Anyway, this has been promoted, this should not be in discussions. --Plozessor 06:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Архитектурный_ансамбль_Великорецкого_града_на_рассвете.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Velikoretsky Grad (by Новинская Г.) --FBilula 12:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Golden 13:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like this picture, it's really impressive. But there is a problem with processing here. In the enlarged photo, we can see a strange texture. It looks unnatural. Alexander Novikov 17:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Саня, something went badly wrong during raw conversion or other processing, massively oversharpened. --Plozessor 10:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, overprocessed. --Sebring12Hrs 11:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Karahantepe2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A view of Karahantepe where an archaeological site in Şanlıurfa, Türkiye --Vincent Vega 17:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 11:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction and quite prominent glare. --C messier 21:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per rules, "oppose is assumed" when someone sends a promoted nomination to CR, changed C messier's comment accordingly. --Plozessor 04:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per C messier. --Plozessor 04:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment ok, looked like a landslide --Georgfotoart 11:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Audi_RS5,_Binz_(P1090702).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Audi RS5 Sportback in Binz auf Rügen --MB-one 22:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment The background is leaning. --Sebring12Hrs 16:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 18:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK --Peulle 06:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate lighting. Some parts of the car are too dark. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
    • @Spurzem: Thanks for the review. pushed the shadows a bit. --MB-one 07:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice now, thanks ! --Sebring12Hrs 07:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Z_24500_assurant_un_TER_Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes_à_destination_de_Chambéry_arrivant_à_Montmélian_voie_4_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination SNCF Class Z 24500 operating a TER Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes service to Chambéry arriving at Montmélian, track 4. --Remontees 20:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Question Good image, but why "unidentified" in the categories? --MB-one 12:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  • They categorised the Z 24500 trainsets one by one, by number. This one was not identified by its number. --Remontees 23:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the categories are fine, but the front of the train is too blurry for me. @MB-one: I wasn't sure if you meant to vote or comment, so I assumed an oppose since it's in CR. --Peulle 06:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per above. --MB-one (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --MB-one (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)