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]] 12:21, 11 January 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


January 11, 2024[edit]

January 10, 2024[edit]

January 9, 2024[edit]

January 8, 2024[edit]

January 7, 2024[edit]

January 6, 2024[edit]

January 5, 2024[edit]

January 4, 2024[edit]

January 3, 2024[edit]

January 2, 2024[edit]

January 1, 2024[edit]

December 31, 2023[edit]

December 30, 2023[edit]

December 21, 2023[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:Grave_of_Iulia_Hașdeu_in_the_Bellu_Cemetery_in_Bucharest,_Romania_(04).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Grave of Iulia Hașdeu in the Bellu Cemetery in Bucharest, Romania --Neoclassicism Enthusiast 17:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --C messier 18:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    Please fix the verticals. --XRay 12:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
    But they look OK. --C messier 12:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Grave_of_Iulia_Hașdeu_in_the_Bellu_Cemetery_in_Bucharest,_Romania_(07).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Grave of Iulia Hașdeu in the Bellu Cemetery in Bucharest, Romania --Neoclassicism Enthusiast 17:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 13:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    Please fix the verticals. --XRay 12:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Centro_de_interpretación_románico,_Luesia,_Zaragoza,_España,_2023-01-04,_DD_63.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Reredos of St Fabian and Sebastian, Romanesque interpretation centre, Luesia, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 07:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 17:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the crucifixion scene at the top and the top panel on the right are too bright and the colors are therefore unnatural. I know from experience how difficult it is sometimes to photograph such painting, but in my opinion difficulties are not a criterion for a quality image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version --Poco a poco 20:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support O.K. for me.--Ermell 22:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 22:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Centro_de_interpretación_románico,_Luesia,_Zaragoza,_España,_2023-01-04,_DD_61.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Reredos of Our Lady of the Rosary, Romanesque interpretation centre, Luesia, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 07:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As I see it, the niche is very distorted. Please discuss whether this is a quality image. -- Spurzem 19:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The niche is not distorted, it IS NOT rectangular. And one more thing, dear Spurzem, it would look less suspect if you would promote one of my pictures. Your last 10 reviews were declines or CRs after a supporting votes. Therefore I consider your votes biased Poco a poco 09:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose This could be a very good image, but the distortion must be fixed and the contrast should be increased (it uses only 77 % of the available brightness range). --Plozessor 05:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment If the niche is not rectangular then I take back the comment about it, but still this picture is too dark, this can easily be fixed though. --Plozessor 12:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: It is of course possible that the niche was adapted to the crooked retablo of the altar. But I don't think so. – Otherwise: Why am I biased when I see clear defects in a photo? Can pictures only be praised here? Best regards -- Spurzem 19:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
If you consider your behaviour civic, who wonders that you have one conflict after the other --Poco a poco 20:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ New version --Poco a poco 20:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now! --Plozessor 05:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

File:201_Dome_Mosque_11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial photographs of 201 Dome Mosque, Tangail District, Bangladesh. --আফতাবুজ্জামান 18:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Certainly sharp and beautiful composition but about half of the small stuppas have moire pattern. --C messier 20:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good and interesting image -- Spurzem 16:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good as QI --Kritzolina 20:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Οδός_Κυρρήστου_16_και_Ερεχθέως,_Πλάκα_3829.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The neoclassic house in Plaka, Athens. --C messier 20:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose a bit noisy. Otherwise good. --MB-one 21:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 18:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose A bit noisy and, due short distance plus extreme PC, looking very unnatural. Might look better when compressing it vertically a bit. (Btw, don't know why it was moved to Discussions as I don't see an contradicting votes.) --Plozessor 06:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Because MB-one doesn't agree with me.... there's no point in waiting his red vote. --Sebring12Hrs 12:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support. The perspective correction is a bit unnaturally. But I know QIs which are less succeeded. -- Spurzem 17:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Aristeas (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Open_Wing_Basking_of_Phalanta_phalantha_(Drury,_1773)_-_Common_Leopard_WLB_DSC_3139.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Open Wing Basking of Phalanta phalantha (Drury, 1773) - Common Leopard. This specimen belongs to sub species Phalanta phalantha phalantha (Drury, [1773]) – Oriental Common Leopard in India.This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Butterfly. --TAPAN1412 17:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality (added the species category). --C messier 21:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Lack of detail, bluish artifacts left wing near the top. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. I see no lack. Good quality to me. -- Spurzem 17:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I may be wrong. Essentially all images of this species, including several QIs, look unusually blurry, without any trace of scales (except for the wing edges) and with very blurry or even entirely missing hairs on the body. However, look at the brightly colored dots everywhere. Blue dots in the black areas on the wings, yellow, light blue and reddish dots on the body, especially in the lower thorax and upper abdomen. The tip of the abdomen looks like it is fused to the lower left wing. If you look at the edge of the upper left wing, you can see greyish-blue areas that separate a part of the light orange scales protruding from the outer edge of the wing from the rest of the wing. All of this may just the result of the substandard monitor I am looking at, but serious overprocessing looks like a much more likely cause with an ISO of 3,200 and hardly any visible noise. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert Flogaus-Faust. Whether it's the butterfly or the leaves, it's not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 01:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert Flogaus-Faust. --Tagooty 08:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Over-processed and nowhere near QI. Charlesjsharp 10:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, massively overprocessed, originally noisy high-ISO picture. --Plozessor 17:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Pörtschach_Johannaweg_Park_und_Pyramidenkogel_25122023_0363.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Park on Johannaweg with Pyramid Ballon in the background, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bgag 04:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I'm not really convince with the clouds over the Pyramid Ballon. They are looking burned. Sorry again. --Milseburg 10:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Milseburg: Thanks for your review. I uploaded an improved version. —- Johann Jaritz 08:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support looks good enough to me --MB-one 10:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support New version is ok. --Plozessor 05:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose that still looks unnatural and overprocessed -- Smial 15:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 10:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)