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]] 00:16, 6 January 2025 (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).


February 17, 2021

February 16, 2021

February 15, 2021

February 14, 2021

February 13, 2021

February 12, 2021

February 11, 2021

February 10, 2021

February 9, 2021

February 8, 2021

February 7, 2021

February 6, 2021

February 5, 2021

February 4, 2021

February 2, 2021

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".


Consensual Review

File:Stream_in_Sarek_National_Park_(DSCF2597).jpg

  • Nomination Stream in Sarek National Park, along the Kungsleden --Trougnouf 08:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose chromatic aberration --Liridon 14:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    Fixed CA removed --Trougnouf 17:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Photographs_of_Église_Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin,_Québec,_Canada_005.jpg

  • Nomination Photographs of Église Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin, Québec --Wilfredor 20:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Insufficient DoF, just the face is in focus --Uoaei1 06:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree. Not only the face is in focus, all the main object (the wood sculture) is in focus. --Wilfredor 16:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Berkendoder_(Piptoporus_betulinus)._23-11-2020._(actm.).jpg

  • Nomination Piptoporus betulinus on a dead birch. Focus stack of 18 photos.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Uoaei1 06:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
     Comment I see halos in the center and right side. -- Ikan Kekek 08:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 16:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
    Improved but not gone and thicker on the right. -- Ikan Kekek 10:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. Small correction. I hope. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 17:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose Still visible, especially on the right. Let's have a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 21:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Mountain_daffodils.jpg

  • Nomination Mountain daffodils. By User:Swift11 --Anntinomy 22:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --KaiBorgeest 23:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose I would disagree. The colors doesn't seem to be natural --Tesla Delacroix 23:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree. Seems heavily manipulated in post-production. -- Ikan Kekek 06:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Схід_на_Мангупі.jpg

  • Nomination Mangup in Crimea. By User:Vian --Anntinomy 11:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Wilfredor 21:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. It looks oversaturated, maybe other votes? --Tesla Delacroix 20:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sure I put it to discuss --Wilfredor 01:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tesla. Seems unrealistic. -- Ikan Kekek 08:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 10:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Горганські_цекоти.jpg

  • Nomination Gorgany Nature Reserve. By User:Тарас Піц --Anntinomy 22:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment I set this to discussion to get a second opinion. For me the DOF is okay here, but it looks a little oversaturated --Tesla Delacroix 20:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support This is my second opinion but I don't see a first opinion --Moroder 09:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support saturation is o.k. for me --Ermell 19:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 19:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Brescia_castello_torre_dei_Prigionieri_panorama_di_Brescia.jpg

  • Nomination Tower of prisoners and view of Brescia from in the Castle. --Moroder 07:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose null --Wilfredor 23:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    the sky look satured --Wilfredor 23:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment That was the color that day--Moroder 08:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ok I put it to discuss to see others opinions --Wilfredor 13:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Moroder, I'd defer to you on the sky in general, but there's a bit of a diffuse halo around the tower, easily visible at smaller resolutions. -- Ikan Kekek 17:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --in spite of sky, which looks a bit artificial KaiBorgeest 22:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 07:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Білий_ліс.jpg

  • Nomination Synevyr National Nature Park. By User:Пивовар Павло --Anntinomy 22:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Impressive --Palauenc05 23:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The WB needs to be corrected --Uoaei1 06:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I'm not sure about WB. It may be correct if it's Golden hour. --XRay 08:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support When the sun is very low, it can look like this--Ermell 19:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ermell --LexKurochkin 21:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 21:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Photographs_of_Église_Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin,_Québec,_Canada_02.jpg

  • Nomination Photographs of Église Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin --Wilfredor 23:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  SupportGood quality. --Pudelek 20:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. DoF is too shallow, even pages are partly blurred. The only sharp object is a bookstand. If this image was named and cathegorized as about bookstand I would agree, but the church is completely out of focus. Sorry. --LexKurochkin 06:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment the out of focus of the church is done on purpose to emphasize the importance of the main subject --Wilfredor 15:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality per above explanation. -- Ikan Kekek 09:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK, but in this case IMO it needs different categorization and better description. --LexKurochkin 14:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@LexKurochkin: ✓ Done Thanks --Wilfredor 04:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I withdraw my objection. Thank you. --LexKurochkin 10:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 10:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Col._Hugh_B._and_Helen_Moore_House.jpg

  • Nomination The Colonel Hugh B. and Helen Moore House --Jim Evans 22:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Fixed sky.
     Oppose Insufficient quality. sky Overexposed --Wilfredor 02:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
     Question I'm not sure what you mean by overexposed? It was a white sky. -- ~~~~
     Support IMO irrelevant --Moroder 15:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks OK, except what are the light gray smudges to the right of the house? -- Ikan Kekek 09:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose highlights burnt.--Ermell 19:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ermell 19:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Brescia_Castello_baluardo_San_Marco_mastio_Visconteo.jpg

  • Nomination Bastion of Saint Mark and Visconti Bergfried in the the Castle of Brescia. --Moroder 22:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Insufficient quality. harsh contrast --Wilfredor 02:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
     Comment That was exactly the light that day. I actually reduced the contrast lighting up the dark parts. --Moroder 08:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose harsh light. --Kallerna 10:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good photo to me. You're going to trash it because it's bright, when nothing looks blown? Are you getting too blase about photos that are large to huge and good to very good? -- Ikan Kekek 12:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The photo shows some bright areas clipping in the red channel, so it is a little bit overexposed. The frontal lighting would certainly prevent it from getting the FPC medal, but it's good enough for QIC. I would support a version with half a stop less exposure without colour shifts in the bright areas. --Smial 23:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 Comment I do. Never rely on histograms that cover the entire photo. Histograms are generally only a very rough measuring instrument and only suitable for a quick, approximate estimate. --Smial 00:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Imo this tipe of peeping goes far beyond guidelines and discourages people to post on QIC, but even to collaborate with Wikimedia :-( --Moroder 09:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I won't take your objection as a personal attack. You wanted to prove with a histogram that the picture is not overexposed. I have explained absolutely objectively what I consider to be the cause of this slight overexposure. That was an attempt to explain to you and possibly others where a technical error is and how to find it. I did not look at individual pixels at all. If you reproach me for this attempt to help you, I don't understand what the point of QIC is, except to get as many trophies as possible for an exclusive group of participants. --Smial 22:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  • Actually I didn't intend it as a personal attack and I'm glad you didn't feel it like that. It was meant in general to some reviewers which look for irrelevant flaws that every photo has. I guess those are errors which are inevitable, even if you work a lot on your image. I like QIC because actually many reviewers like you are helpful to improve the photographic technique and to correct some errors, but that should not be a reason for declining the QI mark, since the main reason why I put pictures on QIC is to give them a quality sign to be published or selected more easily for the articles on WP. I feel that QIC guidelines are correct in promoting quality and fortunately are not as strict to allow also images which are only good and have irrelevant flaws to be promoted and to encourage more participants other than the "exclusive group". Cheers --Moroder 14:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Harsh sunlight is natural at noon time in Italy! Good quality. --Tagooty 09:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support o.k. for me.--Ermell 19:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 19:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Villa_neoclassica_in_Viale_Venezia_Brescia.jpg

  • Nomination Neoclassical villa on Viale Venezia in Brescia. --Moroder 22:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Insufficient quality. trees disturbing and harsh contrast --Wilfredor 02:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    I tried to cut some trees. That was exactly the light that day. I actually reduced the contrast lighting up the dark parts. --Moroder 08:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose harsh light. --Kallerna 10:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Pleasant light and shadows to me, the branches don't spoil the photo and the quality is very high. -- Ikan Kekek 12:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan Kekek, 36 Mo, good light, trees are not a problem --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC) PS : Don't forget to open the picture in full screen.
  •  Support Again slight overexposure, but in this case not really disturbing. -- Smial 23:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Tagooty 10:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 12:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Brescia_castello_torre_dei_Francesi_panorama_di_Brescia.jpg

  • Nomination Tower of the French and view of Brescia from in the Castle. --Moroder 22:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Insufficient quality. Harsh contrast and left bottom corner is almost black --Wilfredor 02:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
     Comment What is the problem. You can see every detail and it's the northern face of the fortress --Moroder 08:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC) --Moroder 08:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose harsh light. --Kallerna 10:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have to say the blurry black shadow in the lower left corner is bothersome. I'd recommend making a horizontal crop above it. Would you consider that, Moroder? The rest is a very nice composition and very high-quality. -- Ikan Kekek 12:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks Ikan, I was not aware of that shadow on the left --Moroder 12:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks.  Support -- Ikan Kekek 13:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support, again exposure on the high side with some colour channel clipping. Ansonsten sehr gut. --Smial 23:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 10:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Tagooty 10:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Ruf_de_Gherdëina_Derjon_stil_Urtijëi.jpg

  • Nomination The Derjon river in Urtijëi, Gröden. --Moroder 22:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Insufficient quality. Oversharpening and top branches are blurred --Wilfredor 02:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
     Comment With high resolution photos there are always less focused parts, that is photography, unless you do focus stacking. But not even than. --Moroder 08:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Fix the purple CA on the branches in the upper right and then I will support. -- Ikan Kekek 12:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thank you --Moroder 16:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek 19:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred trees in top left --Tagooty 10:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan--Ermell 19:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Seven Pandas 12:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Football_freestyle_2013_Masters_epee_t163604.jpg

  • Nomination Football freestyle demonstration at the 2013 Masters à l'Epée. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 17:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 09:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disagree, Head and legs were not in focus. --Geoprofi Lars 13:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  CommentThe ball is --Andrew J.Kurbiko 12:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  CommentThats not enought --Geoprofi Lars 19:00, 12 February 2021
  •  Support The ball is in focus and is frozen in the air with 1/500 shutter speed, the sportsman's body and right hand are also in focus with proper level of detail. I would consider slightly blurred legs as stressing the quick movement of the sportsman and thus contributing to the image overall impression and right understanding of the event. IMO it is a feature, not a problem. --LexKurochkin 14:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --MB-one 21:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 21:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Sculpture_-_The_Palace_of_Versailles.jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture - The Palace of Versailles (by Commonists) --Sebring12Hrs 08:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Request Better file description and categorisation --Moroder 22:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks --Commonists 09:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, but I consider noise in upper part of the image more significant problem. It is visible in shadows and midtones on head, neck, shoulders, below statue left arm at the body. --LexKurochkin 11:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. Noise is irrelevant --Moroder 11:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think, it needs discussion. Noise as per my comment; hair on top of the head and near neck is not sharp enough. --LexKurochkin 15:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Noise and lack of sharpness, per LexKurochkin. --Tagooty (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Moroder. --MB-one 21:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photographer can't vote on their own photo at COM:QIC (see above: "Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination."), and after some consideration, I think the head should be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek 11:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose lack of sharpness.--Tobias ToMar Maier 11:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 11:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

File:White_throat_Kingfisher_Uthandi_TN_Feb21_D72_19860.jpg

  • Nomination White-throated kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis), Uthandi, TN, India. --Tagooty 09:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 10:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. beak in focus, not the head --Charlesjsharp 17:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support sharp enough to be printed to A4 size or even larger. --Smial 23:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Fischer.H 10:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 18:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Geoprofi Lars 13:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles --Milseburg 14:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The head is unsharp. --A.Savin 02:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles --LexKurochkin 14:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support--Tesla Delacroix 20:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles --Ermell 08:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support No FP, but good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)