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]] 08:15, 23 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 23, 2024

[edit]

September 22, 2024

[edit]

September 21, 2024

[edit]

September 20, 2024

[edit]

September 19, 2024

[edit]

September 18, 2024

[edit]

September 17, 2024

[edit]

September 16, 2024

[edit]

September 15, 2024

[edit]

September 14, 2024

[edit]

September 13, 2024

[edit]

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 5, 2024

[edit]

September 4, 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:Thai_Soup_and_Wonton.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Thai Soup and Wonton. --RockyMasum 15:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Kritzolina 08:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC) *I oppose, not much is sharp and crop isnt good. Should go Focus stacking in any case. --PetarM 09:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

File:PARQUE_ESTADUAL_DO_JALAPÃO-_CORÁLIA_ELIAS-_(20).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination By User:CORÁLIA ELIAS --Rodrigo.Argenton 04:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Lvova 20:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose What is the subject of this image? The genus should be known at least, including an appropriate description and category. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Paróquia_São_Sebastião,_Cachoeira_Paulista_2017_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Paróquia São Sebastião, Cachoeira Paulista, Brazil --Mike Peel 08:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 08:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review. Can we discuss? Current perspective is natural from this angle, looking up at the church. Thanks. Mike Peel 06:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Ang_Thong_2024_-_Wat_Suwansewariyaram_วัดสุวรรณเสวริยาราม_-_img_25.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wat Suvārnasevariyārām Temple, Ang Thong, Thailand --Chainwit. 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Perspective correction is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 11:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Perceptive was corrected based of walls and other structures in the background. The subject building is rather skewed by design (a popular style of that era) --Chainwit. 16:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The perspective issue is probably an optical illusion, IMO the picture is good. --Plozessor 04:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The right is leaning a bit. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 09:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I may be wrong, but I came to the conclusion that the building, not the image, is leaning. --Plozessor 06:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • May be you are right, I don't know, the left is good. I think the crop at right is not optimal too. But the compo is not so bad. I wait for more opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 07:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Санкт-Петербург,_особняк_Румянцева,_потолок_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Part of a woooden ceiling. Interiors and exhibition of Rumyantsev mansion. 44, Angliyskaya embankment, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Красный 04:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very unfavorable lighting. Is this really a quality photo? Please discuss. -- Spurzem 15:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Interesting composition. Technically very good except for the quite dark shadows, but that probably reflects the conditions in the building (it is not a perfect photo of the ceiling but it is how a visitor would see it). --Plozessor 09:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It is still QI to me. --Sebring12Hrs 12:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 09:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Kenotaph_Ludwigs_des_Bayern_(München)_front.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kenotaph Ludwigs des Bayern (München) front --AuHaidhausen 14:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lack of details --Uoaei1 05:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I see many details,other opinions? Thank you --AuHaidhausen 11:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main subject is too dark, windows and chandelier are blown out. Background appears somehow distorted (could be a result of strong NR). Might be possible to improve it with better raw conversion (but there's no information about the camera in EXIF data). --Plozessor 07:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: The picture is not perfect. But why shouldn't it be rated as QI like many others? We are generally very generous here. Best regards -- Spurzem 10:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
@Spurzem: Can you explain the point of your comment? Do you think this photo here is good? If so, why aren't you voting? If this is trolling because people disagree with some of your assessments, please remember that you can be blocked for such teasing. Jakubhal 16:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
@Jakubhal: It's very interesting that you immediately respond to ironically worded criticism with a threat. Please take a look at the picture above and you'll understand what I wanted to say. -- Spurzem 17:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The focus is on the knights in the front and the main part of kenotaph is out of focus and blurred. Minor perspective distortion. Lights per Plozessor --Jakubhal 16:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

View of a balcony from the Kasbah of Bouznika

[edit]

  • Nomination View of a balcony from the Kasbah of Bouznika --User:Mounir Neddi 19:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Your verticals are not vertical and there's a tencency to CA's (easy to correct). Furthermore the use of such high F-numbers (29!) may increase the basic DOF but reduces sharpness. And beside that it highlights dust spots (on top of the column) and demands high ISO numbers (1600) wich in turn increases chromatic noise in the dark areas. Can you fix all these effects? --PtrQs 17:30, 9 September 2024
  • Hi, thanks for your valuable comments. I'm not a photography expert, I didn't understand some things you mentioned. I really tried to make the photo look its best given the weather conditions I took it in. User:Mounir Neddi 12:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a link between f-number, exposure time and ISO speed (sensitivity). You used f/29 which gives extreme depth of field (which is unnecessary here), but as that leaves hardly any light to the sensor, you need extremely high ISO speed (ISO 1600) which resulted in extreme noise. For an object in bright sunlight you should use something like ISO 100. With your camera's APS-C sensor, something like f/3 or f/4 would have been enough to have the building sharp, and maybe something around f/12 would have been enough to have both the building and the background sharp. --Plozessor 19:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy IMO. In addition, there is no description. I stroke out the invalid (unsigned!) vote above. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Argh, restored and signed it. Sorry. --Plozessor 19:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 19:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Országház_(Hungarian_Parliament_Building)(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hungarian Parliament Building (Országház) during sunset. --Lynx1211 16:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose WB is off, left one would be suitable. --PetarM 18:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. The left picture was shot during daylight, this picture was shot in the golden hour before sunset. The WB looks like other sunset photos. --Lynx1211 18:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, beautiful light and I don't understand the WBremark --Michielverbeek 05:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 06:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Golden hour. Good quality. --Milseburg 13:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support ++ per others. --Plozessor 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others --Jakubhal 18:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Basu_Bati_Courtyard_05.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Fenster_mit_Spinnenweben_und_Autoreifen_20240901_HOF0692-HDR_RAW-Export.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spider webs with windows and tire, colored. --PantheraLeo1359531 11:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Chroma and luminance noise --MB-one 09:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose  Not done in a week.--Peulle 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --PantheraLeo1359531 06:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me now. --MB-one 13:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Fisherman's bike on Manisman beach

[edit]

  • Nomination Fisherman's bike on Manisman beach in Mohammedia. --User:Mounir Neddi 13:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Too bright and please, don't overcatorize, see COM:OVERCAT --Poco a poco 16:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the note, i fixed the problem.
    It's then a good habit to upload the improved version :) --Poco a poco 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Reach fisermans there, with SPD pedals on road bike. Fine with me, sharp, just colors could be... --Mile (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are chromatic aberrations that could do with some cleaning up.--Peulle 07:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Mile (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Acueducto,_Segovia,_España,_2024-06-14,_DD_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Acueducto, Segovia, España, 2024-06-14 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 08:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 11:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please discuss. I don't find all those insect-spots or unsharp birds okay for QI. --Milseburg 14:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, those are swallows, I believe. The long exposure may not have been the right choice for this shot, as it also affects the people.--Peulle 07:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Better now. Some are left, but I stop opposing. --Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

File:National_Bullriding_Championship_Finals_2024-104A3770.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flag girls entering the arena at the Silver Dollar Fairgrounds in Chico, California, at the beginning of the National Bullriding Championship Finals --Frank Schulenburg 04:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Blurry and unsharp.--Peulle 11:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Available light action shot, good enough for an A4 size printout. --Smial 12:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support A great scene whose technical limitations don't even show up on a printout. I tested it today and made an A3 color print with our large laser printer: the result is solid and suitable for print products. --Radomianin 10:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, the sharpness could be better, but still very interesting photo, with quality enough for QI --Jakubhal 16:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The challenging conditions are obvious, but below the QI bar IMHO, sorry --Poco a poco 07:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Radomianin 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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)
  •  Oppose At the limit, but the right hand (right for the statue) isn't sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 09:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice picture. The right hand is sharp enough for me, especially since it only makes up an insignificant part of the subject. -- Spurzem 21:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough quality. ReneeWrites 22:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs --Poco a poco 07:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)