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]] 02:41, 16 July 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).


July 16, 2024

[edit]

July 15, 2024

[edit]

July 14, 2024

[edit]

July 13, 2024

[edit]

July 12, 2024

[edit]

July 11, 2024

[edit]

July 10, 2024

[edit]

July 09, 2024

[edit]

July 08, 2024

[edit]

July 07, 2024

[edit]

July 06, 2024

[edit]

July 05, 2024

[edit]

July 04, 2024

[edit]

July 03, 2024

[edit]

July 02, 2024

[edit]

July 01, 2024

[edit]

June 29, 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:University_of_Sao_Paulo_campus_2016_009.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Torre do Relógio e Reitoria da Universidade de São Paulo --Mike Peel 06:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --DimiTalen 06:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective distortion needs to be fixed. --Augustgeyler 15:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good rework. --Smial 14:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 06:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Siemens_train_772M_departing_Platform_2_at_Sunshine_Railway_Station_running_a_Down_service_to_Sunbury.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Siemens train 772M departing Platform 2 at Sunshine Railway Station running a Down service to Sunbury, Melbourne, Australia --Takerlamar 05:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I couldn't find out if the author is a Commoner. User:Takerlamar was uploading it. The source is Flickr and the author is Philip Mallis. So I can't say that Philip Mallis is a Commoner. --Augustgeyler 07:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler, the author is apparently not a Commons user. --Plozessor 05:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --MB-one 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Nieten_einer_im_Abbau_befindlichen_Stahlbrücke.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rivets of a 100-year-old steel bridge under deconstruction. --Augustgeyler 12:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose A large part of the picture is not in focus. --Sebring12Hrs 03:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for reviewing. You might be right. But as this focus decision was intentional to show these old rivets in that nightly situation just before demolishing I'd like to here some more opinions. --Augustgeyler 15:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The low DoF contributes to the atmosphere of the picture, thus ok IMO. --Plozessor 05:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor --Kritzolina 13:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The denoising could have been a bit milder, but low DOF is clearly intentional and ok in this case. --Smial 14:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 17:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Porsche_972_IMG_9537.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Porsche 972 in Böblingen --Alexander-93 18:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment It seems to be out of focus ? --Sebring12Hrs 08:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Out of focus. --Sebring12Hrs 11:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The sharpness is not optimal, but it would be sufficient for me. However, I still don't understand why the colleague squashes his pictures so flat. With normal cropping it would be a nice photo. -- Spurzem 15:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 16:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The sharpness is borderline, in this case just below minimum for QI in my opinion. --Augustgeyler 15:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The depth of field is a little tight, the crop is a little tight, but at least the background in this parking lot photo is not as terribly distracting as in so many others that have already won awards for quality. Sufficient for an A4-size print. --Smial 14:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 06:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Rosneft_headquarter_(1902).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rosneft headquarter building and Kremlevskaya embankment --Юрий Д.К. 16:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Outer parts (especially left side) are to blurry. --Augustgeyler 20:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Digital sharpening did improve it. But I think it is still just not sharp enough. Let's see what other reviewers think. --Augustgeyler 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Plozessor 08:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 08:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kirchspiel,_ehem._Sondermunitionslager_Visbeck,_Bunker_26_--_2024_--_0052.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bunker 26 in the Dülmen-Visbeck special ammunition depot, Dernekamp hamlet, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Improper use of wide angle lens / perspective problemes here: The high point of view combined with downwards tilted camera leads to an unrealistic representation of the object. --Augustgeyler 08:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Makes me smile a little: wide angle. No. It's the fixed lens of the drone. The angle of view is elevated and not comparable to shots from the ground. Nevertheless, I have aligned the verticals and hope that it's okay. --XRay 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Improved. Sorry for this. But 6,72mm – even if unaware of the sensor size – looks like wide angle, doesn't it? I was not aware of the fact that it is a drone shot. Is the EXIF data the only place where I can find the information about the drone? --August Geyler (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Plozessor 08:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Now the image is technically correctly corrected for perspective, and it looks completely wrong from a bird's eye view. Such a 100% correction does not always improve the "natural" representation. --Smial 14:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • It's a question that always moves me. It also comes up in my photography courses: What is a natural representation in photography? Naturalness is the view with our eyes from a very specific angle. However, the eye only composes the overall picture (yes, the brain also plays a role) from many individual components, photography has a harder time and only knows one representation. A "long exposure" with the eye is not possible, nor is a photo with many different apertures for individual areas (yet). The same applies to the angle of view. Of course ;-) the slanted lines are more or less normal, but there are also tilt-shift lenses that correct this. Are verticals unnatural from certain angles because they run vertically (parallel)? --XRay 16:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps an example will better explain what I mean: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Smial/correction_of_perspective,_good_and_bad_examples#Views_from_above --Smial 17:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 08:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Leuchtturm_Pagensand_Süd_mit_Sockel_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Der kleine Leuchtturm Pagensand Süd mit Sockel im Museumshafen Övelgönne. By User:Pauli-Pirat --Nightflyer 19:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Needs perspective correction, otherwise good. --ReneeWrites 22:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Greetings --Nightflyer 07:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 20:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is pixelated, shows compression artifacts at contrasty parts and has a low level of detail. --Augustgeyler 20:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler, plus looking really unnatural due perspective. Might be better without PC (for Commons:Quality_images#Perspective). --Plozessor 08:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 08:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Weisse_Mauer,_Oberursel_(IMG_20221105_165849-Pano).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from Weiße Mauer towards Großer Feldberg (left) and Kolbenberg (right), Oberursel (Taunus) --MB-one 08:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Rather noisy. The right and left edges are strange. --Milseburg 13:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No response --Milseburg 16:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 17:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Intense CR in the left third (twigs above the horizon). IMHO not easy to fix. White balance in the sky seems off. --Zinnmann 09:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Also seam at the bottom to fix. --Milseburg 13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Switching to Consensual review since there is an oppose involved. --Augustgeyler 08:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry ... CA in the branches, partly blurry, unnatural colors, tilted. --Plozessor 08:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 08:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Alexandr_Makedonsky,_Summer_Garden.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bust of Alexander the Great, Summer Garden, Saint-Petersburg --Lvova 14:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Very nice but unfortunately too soft. --Augustgeyler 16:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Disagree, let's discuss it. --ReneeWrites 22:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but I agree, the face is to soft with low level of details imo.--ArildV 06:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Undecided, DoF is borderline. --Plozessor 10:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, not enough details for a QI taken outside in good lighting conditions. --Benjism89 11:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Пик_Комсомола.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Komsomol peak. Ile Alatau national park, Almaty Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Dots foto --Красный 23:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 19:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Colors of the grass and trees are oversaturated, and while I don't mind shadows being brightened I think it's overdone here to the point it no longer looks natural. --ReneeWrites 23:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK as it is for me. --Plozessor 10:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per ReneeWrites,  Overprocessed --Augustgeyler 10:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed, the colors are not natural --El Golli Mohamed 12:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 15:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Enseigne_de_magasin_(Turckheim).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Shop sign in Turckheim (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 07:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 14:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very poor lighting. Is it still really a QI? Please discuss -- Spurzem 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem. --Augustgeyler 09:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed. --Smial 10:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Plozessor 04:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --August Geyler (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Haltern_am_See,_Naturpark_Hohe_Mark,_Hohemarkenbusch,_Baumstamm_--_2024_--_4411.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Photo art based on a photo of a tree trunk in the Hohe Mark Nature Park in the district of Holtwick, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe I don't understand enough about art, maybe even nothing at all. But I would like to ask you to discuss whether this photo based on a tree trunk is a quality image. -- Spurzem 21:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't understand too. --Sebring12Hrs 05:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Because photographic art and creativity are also part of photography. Wikimedia Commons is a media archive and includes a variety of genres. --XRay 09:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 10:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Because the technical quality (this is what we judge here on this page) of this artistic photo is very high. Believe me, try experimenting yourself for a bit, you will see what I mean. --Kritzolina 10:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello Kritzolina, maybe I should also present my often mentioned attempt to photograph the non-existent black cat in the dark basement without light. Perhaps the result would also be considered great art. ;-) Best regards and please no offense -- Spurzem 19:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Photographing non-existing cats in dark basements ist not a well established photography technique. It it were, you might get a quality image out of it. And I don't take offense here, but other people who do good work in those fields of photography you are not comfortable with, might. The comparison is offensive in nature, as it compares doing really stupidand nonsensical things with photography that requires skills, technical expertise and inspiration. Please don't take offense for me pointing this out. --Kritzolina 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support As we already discussed few months ago, IMO the only problem with artistic images like this is the lack of objective criteria. So we can only judge it subjectively - and this picture pleases my sense of aesthetics. --Plozessor 12:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It looks to me like someone has a very unclear sight and is in a forest with sunlight shining through --PantheraLeo1359531 12:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Shouldn't we be focusing on the technical quality instead of whether this is art or not? --Zzzs 15:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Technical quality is one aspect, composition and image design are another. And the technical quality alone cannot be assessed across the board, because, for example, a sharp image can have good technical quality, but so can a blurred one. In my opinion, a good depiction of motion blur, for example, is also a good technical quality. With some images, however, technical quality is not the main focus, other reasons prevail. It is therefore not easy to evaluate a picture using simple criteria. --XRay 16:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry. --Milseburg 22:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 22:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Alter_Zerbener_Kiessee_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Quarry lake in winter --Georgfotoart 13:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 15:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Stitching errors to fix. Rather low image height. --Milseburg 15:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done newly compiled --Georgfotoart 21:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think there is still a stitching error around 1301,528. --Plozessor 04:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --August Geyler (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Apogónido_(Ostorhinchus_compressus),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-21,_DD_185.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ochre-striped cardinalfish (Ostorhinchus compressus), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 06:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I think it lacks sharpness, it's a bit noisy. Feel free to send it to discussion. --Sebring12Hrs 11:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I indeed believe that there is enough level of detail here for an underwater QI. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 12:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed good enough for an underwater picture. --Plozessor 04:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support as per Plozessor. --Radomianin 06:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The head is dark and noisy, not enough sharpness sorry El Golli Mohamed 12:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Radomianin 18:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Hauptplatz_27_in_Enns_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Building at Hauptplatz 27 in Enns, Upper Austria, Austria. --Tournasol7 04:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately the building looks too distorted due too intense perspective correction. --Augustgeyler 22:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective is ok here IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 05:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It looks like the building is wider at the top than at the bottom. Is that really the case? Further it seems a bit dark. -- Spurzem 13:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler -- Екатерина Борисова 18:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info slightly distorted and slightly dark --Georgfotoart 11:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 18:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Emirates,_ILA_2024,_Schoenefeld_(ILA43985).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Entrance booth to the Emirates static display area at ILA Berlin Air Show 2024 --MB-one 08:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Right side leaning in a bit. IMHO top crop is acceptable. --C messier 22:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose People clearly recognizable --Georgfotoart 10:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's not relevant for QI. Plus, the photograph was created with an official permission by the organizers of ILA. --MB-one 22:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • People at public events in Germany may be recognizable on pictures as long as they're not the primary subject. But  Oppose until perspective is fixed. --Plozessor 16:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • OK, but the image section is still unfavorable  Oppose --Georgfotoart 20:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info only one vote per reviewer! --Augustgeyler 16:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @C messier and Plozessor: ✓ Done Thanks for your reviews. Have applied perspective correction. --MB-one 18:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support now! --Plozessor 05:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. ReneeWrites 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Technically OK. The sharpness is low but good enough. The composition is not good, showing only parts of the that tail fin, people are relatively unsharp at the outer parts while at the image centre nothing is happening and the empty foreground takes very much room. --Augustgeyler 16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 05:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)