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]] 02:33, 6 November 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).


November 06, 2024

[edit]

November 05, 2024

[edit]

November 04, 2024

[edit]

November 03, 2024

[edit]

November 02, 2024

[edit]

November 01, 2024

[edit]

October 31, 2024

[edit]

October 30, 2024

[edit]

October 29, 2024

[edit]

October 28, 2024

[edit]

October 27, 2024

[edit]

October 26, 2024

[edit]

October 25, 2024

[edit]

October 24, 2024

[edit]

October 23, 2024

[edit]

October 22, 2024

[edit]

October 21, 2024

[edit]

October 20, 2024

[edit]

October 17, 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:Zaouiat_Moulay_Abdeslam,_Tizguite_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The shrine of the righteous saint Sidi Abdel Salam bin Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi Al-Walani, in the village of Zawiya Sidi Abdel Salam near the Moroccan city of Ifrane. --User:Mounir Neddi 13:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Leaning in on the right, needs PC --Plozessor 04:34, 2 November 2024
    Thanks ✓ Done --User:Mounir Neddi 18:45, 04 Nov 2024 (UTC)
    Reason for request: The request was archived before the discussion was completed. --User:Mounir Neddi 20:22, 05 Nov 2024 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_posture_Nectaring_of_Eurema_hecabe_(Linnaeus,_1758)_-_Common_Grass_Yellow_WLB_DSC_4525.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Željko_Obradović_KK_Partizan_EuroLeague_20241101_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Basketball-Euroleague 2024/25, Round 7: Fenerbahçe Beko Istanbul vs. Partizan Mozzart Bet Belgrade (89-72) – KK Partizan head coach Željko Obradović --Zafer 11:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Sorry, but the focus is on the ear, the rest of the face is clearly too soft. --Sandro Halank 16:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sandro --George Chernilevsky 16:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sandro --Plozessor 06:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 08:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment QI guidelines have an exemption policy on portrait photography for perfect sharpness, so I don't mind that it's not perfectly sharp, it still does a good job depicting its subject. ReneeWrites 09:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry @Sandro Halank, George Chernilevsky, Plozessor, and Peulle: , this is the quality image candidate, not a featured image. Regards and Thanks, Zafer (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I understand that this is a difficult shot, but the result is really below avergade. Currently, the requirements for QI are minimal. If we approve any blurry photo here, then the QI project must be closed as useless. -- George Chernilevsky 10:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is QI, and IMO your picture does not meet the QI guidelines. It is noisy and blurry due ISO 2500 and also low f-number (since the ear is sharp). We could probably accept low DoF for a difficult shot, but then the focus should be on the face, not on one ear.
  • Sorry, the image is clearly usable. But it is not a quality image. It is true that we accept limited depth of field and higher level of noise for sports and indoor photography (if the conditions do not allow a tripod), but quality images should not have obvious technical flaws unrelated to the conditions. Here the focus is clearly wrong, it would have been possible to take a picture where the face and not the ear was in focus.--ArildV 16:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Although I like to concede a certain amount of image deficiencies in available light photos, I unfortunately have to agree with the other voters here, because even in A4 size the wrong focus is recognizable. This does not mean that the picture is garbage and unusable. --Smial 14:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Southern_Theatre_(Gerasa,_Jerash;_Jordan_v2)_-_مسرح_جرش_الجنوبي.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Southern Theatre (Gerasa, Jerash; Jordan) --PetarM 22:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 10:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Blurry on both sides, sorry --Екатерина Борисова 01:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

File:At_the_Cradle_of_Aviation_Museum_2023_121.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination CM-002 at Cradle of Aviation Museum --Mike Peel 09:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    A bit noisy and seems tilted CW --MB-one 21:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review, rotated and noise reduced, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 20:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality now. --MB-one 17:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose The sign in the left bottom corner is very disturbing. I know you didn't have the choice, but please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

File:2024_Kłodzko,_ul._Walecznych_3_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 3 Walecznych Street in Kłodzko 2 --Jacek Halicki 23:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Drab, not very visually appealing, and not especially high quality --The People's Internet 00:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. PLease discuss. --Tournasol7 00:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The building might be drab, but that's not the photographer's fault. IMO the picture meets QI guidelines and fulfills its purpose. --Plozessor 12:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI is about technical requirements, not whether a picture is pretty. ReneeWrites 09:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--ArildV 16:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Arch_of_Hadrian_(Gerasa,_Jerash;_Jordan)_-_قوس_هادريان_(جرش).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Arch of Hadrian (Gerasa, Jerash; Jordan) --PetarM 17:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 23:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There's something strange happening with the people behind. some processing artifacts. By the way... why 70 Mpx? Do we gain something from that additional high resolution mode? --Kadellar 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Downsampling is against QI guidelines, so if the native resolution of this panorama is 70 MP then it should be uploaded in that resolution. --Plozessor 12:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, mainly because there's at least one stitching error, visible especially at the information board in the center (behind the arch). This also shows that the different frames have different focus. And it's obviously a panorama, but the panorama template is missing. --Plozessor 12:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Mercado_del_pescado,_ciudad_de_Kuwait,_Kuwait,_2024-08-12,_DD_30.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fresh fish market, Kuwait City, Kuwait --Poco a poco 10:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The composition is beautiful, but it's too noisy to be a QI imo and denoising would destroy the details --FlocciNivis 18:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I gave it a try and IMHO it's looking good --Poco a poco 07:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, QI without a doubt. --Kadellar 10:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Plozessor 12:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. ReneeWrites 09:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good now.--ArildV 08:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Il_Pitosforo_(Otranto).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Il Pitosforo tree (Pittosporum) , Otranto, Italy --Bgag 03:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Harsh lighting, greens appear washed out. Fixable? --Tagooty 04:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose In the new version the greens have become browner, looks less natural to me. --Tagooty 02:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Slaski_tydzien_5057.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination The part of monument of John of Nepomuk in Wrocław --Lvova 12:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Ok, given that the picture is from 2011. --Plozessor 04:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose The left arm and hand aren't in focus. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 04:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry. As it is nominated in 2024, today's standards apply. It is very difficult, nearly impossible, for most reviewers to apply the standards of 13 years ago. --Tagooty 01:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Just butting in, quickly, to mention that the Guidelines specify that: "The purpose of quality image status is to recognize that at the moment of creation, a Commons user skillfully achieved a desirable level of quality, a recognition that is not erased by later advances." So technically, the standards of 2011 (not 2024) are the ones that apply. If that makes it hard for users to judge, there's always the option of leaving it unreviewed.--Peulle 09:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Tagooty (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Sarlat-la-Canéda_-_Place_de_la_Liberté_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sarlat-la-Canéda (Dordogne, France) - Liberty square --Benjism89 10:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 04:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Something is off with the sky colors (parts of the sky are just plain purple). Sharpness is borderline. About the blurred faces, personally I don't have an issue with them but in general they are usually not appreciated here, and for scenes like this not necessary. --Plozessor 04:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree for the blurred faces. --Sebring12Hrs 04:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Indeed, part of the sky was purple and contrast in the sky was a bit unnatural, so I adjusted WB and decreased a bit sky contrast. I may also have blurred faces that were too small to be recognised, so I unblurred the furthest. But it's the first I read that blurring people's faces is "usually not appreciated here" : I'd be happy to read any discussion about this matter that you could find. --Benjism89 17:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is acceptable now. About the blurred faces, I can't link to a discussion with real arguments (besides 'it's not necessary' or 'we don't do that'), but per my personal understanding of German law, a picture like yours would be allowed without blurring the faces because it's a public location and it's large number of people. I don't know French law though. --Plozessor 04:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Plaque_at_La-Z-Boy,_Newton,_MS.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plaque at the La-Z-Boy office in Newton, Mississippi, USA. --Ktkvtsh 20:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Needs PC. Otherwise good. --Tagooty 02:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • What is PC? --Ktkvtsh 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • What is PC? --Ktkvtsh 16:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Perspective correction. Plaque should be rectangular. --Plozessor 05:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Plozessor: After a little correction I think it is good now. Best regards. -- Spurzem 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for me now. --Plozessor 12:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. --Sebring12Hrs 12:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Tagooty (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Tagooty (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Sompura_Mahavihara_2024_17.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panels 9original) of Sompura Mahavihara. This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2024. --Rangan Datta Wiki 06:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp, sorry --Екатерина Борисова 01:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 10:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. --Sebring12Hrs 04:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Pilot 111 SE Visby October 2024 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination PIlot boat Pilot 111 SE in Visby habour.--ArildV 21:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Very good but slightly tilted (as can be seen from the houses in background), can you fix that? --Plozessor 04:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • As there are no votes, moved from Discuss back to Review --Tagooty 04:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oops, must have been a mistake, sorry. I just wanted to review. --Plozessor 05:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thank you for review. New version uploaded.--ArildV 07:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, good now! --Plozessor 04:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The vote above is from Plozessor in this edit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AQuality_images_candidates%2Fcandidate_list&diff=951399209&oldid=951398971. @Plozessor: Please remember signing your votes! --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry, thx. Added signature. --Plozessor 04:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 05:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Porsche_Macan_4_IMG_2159.jpg

[edit]

  • 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)
  •  Oppose Great composition, the overexposure could be fixed, but unfortunately the focus is off - the rear wheel is close, but the rest is out of focus. I don't think this is recoverable... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Mike --Sandro Halank 16:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 16:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Renault_Master,_Busworld_Europe_2023,_Brussels_(P1140367).jpg

[edit]

  • 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)
  •  Support Looks good, background and lighting are reasonable, have seen worse. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed Poco a poco 10:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment ✓ Done improved exposure. Thanks for the review. --MB-one 23:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The lighting conditions are not ideal, but the quality of the image is really good. --Sandro Halank 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many issues above for QI. --GRDN711 05:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but the lighting issues are too much. S5A-0043 05:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)