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]] 04:35, 26 December 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).


December 26 2024

[edit]

December 25 2024

[edit]

December 24 2024

[edit]

December 23 2024

[edit]

December 22 2024

[edit]

December 21 2024

[edit]

December 20 2024

[edit]

December 19 2024

[edit]

December 18 2024

[edit]

December 17 2024

[edit]

December 16, 2024

[edit]

December 15, 2024

[edit]

December 14, 2024

[edit]

December 13, 2024

[edit]

December 12, 2024

[edit]

December 11, 2024

[edit]

December 10, 2024

[edit]

December 9, 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:Kimera,_GIMS_2024,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(GIMS0151).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lancia Beta Montecarlo Turbo of Martini Racing at Geneva International Motor Show 2024 --MB-one 00:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment The top of the wind shield is blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 01:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 03:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Conflicting edits apparently due helper malfunction, sending this to discussions. --Plozessor 05:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The car is shown very sharp. Nevertheless, I am not convinced by the photo because the proportions of the Lancia are unnatural. It must have been photographed from a too close distance. -- Spurzem 18:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Goodbye_King,_ILA_2024,_Schoenefeld_(ILA45263).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination German Navy Sea King Helicopter (registration 89+58) in special livery to commemorate the end of service in flying display at ILA Berlin Air Show 2024 --MB-one 12:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Bad crop, mostly sky. --Kallerna 19:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The clouds make a good background here, I think. --Vsatinet 08:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No issue with the composition, but the helicopter is too dark and too blurry. --Plozessor 10:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Ain_Leuh_commune_5.jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment No, it's still not good. You've straightened the gates, but it made the top crop of the photo worse. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

File:3_Zinnen_Dolomites_ski_resort_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hasenköpfl chair lift, Helm/Monte Elmo, 3 Zinnen Dolomites ski resort. --Kallerna 16:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 19:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow is very disturbing, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 21:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadowy part is too dark. Can probably be fixed with different raw conversion settings. --Plozessor 06:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of the shadow -- Spurzem 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Karaköy_desde_el_puente_de_Gálata,_Estambul,_Turquía,_2024-09-28,_DD_93.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Karaköy from the Galata Bridge, Istanbul, Turkey --Poco a poco 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much/not enough bridge, too much sky. Overall bad crop. --Kallerna 19:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Poor judgement. Adding the fishing rods (and therefore some sky) was intentional and a valid composition. Yours is no reason to decline a picture for QI. --Poco a poco 21:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO it's a valid composition, using the bridge as kind of frame. However, this should be somehow mentioned in the description. Now it just says "Karaköy from the Galata Bridge", the bridge and fishermen are not mentioned at all. --Plozessor 06:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Rocamadour_-_Rue_de_la_Mercerie_-_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rocamadour (Lot, France) - View of the religious complex from Mercery street --Benjism89 10:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose not enough sharp, perspective --Ezarate 18:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Sharpness looks acceptable to me, and I don't see any problem with perspective (everything that should be vertical is vertical, except the cross at the top of the tower but that means that it is the cross that is crooked). Any other opinion ? --Benjism89 10:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Could be sharper, it seems like focus was in foreground, but IMO the background is still sharp enough. Also there's nothing wrong with perspective. --Plozessor 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support DoF could be better, but still ok. Perspective is ok. --Sebring12Hrs 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 11:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Cambio_de_la_guardia,_Anıtkabir,_Ankara,_Turquía,_2024-10-03,_DD_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Change of the guard, Anıtkabir, Ankara, Turkey --Poco a poco 22:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, too blurry. --Alexander-93 22:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
✓ New version, should be ok now. --Poco a poco 04:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp even on 4mpx, should be better considering the sunlight conditions. --Kallerna 19:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Cisterna_Basílica,_Estambul,_Turquía,_2024-09-28,_DD_01-03_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Basilica Cistern, Istanbul, Turkey --Poco a poco 05:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much noise. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 07:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • New version, should be ok for QI --Poco a poco 04:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Noise/sharpness acceptable for the situation (now). Personally I'd prefer a less verticalized, more naturally looking version, but I guess we have to compromise with the verticalization fanatics. --Plozessor 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The new version is acceptable for a picture taken in low light situation (the first version was not IMO). --Benjism89 10:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Messy composition, too extreme perspective correction, dark. Overall unnatural result. --Kallerna 19:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support ok to me.--Ermell 23:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Kallerna 19:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Swineherd_statue_in_Riedlingen_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Swineherd statue in Riedlingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. --Tournasol7 05:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The subject is well depicted but too dark, would you try to enhance shadow? --Terragio67 07:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Imo it is not too dark  Support, the sky is cloudy --Michielverbeek 07:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi Michielverbeek, I understand what you mean... My proposal is to make the photo this way with small changes... --Terragio67 13:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I have not opened your link. Now the photo contains enough details for QI and the shadows are not strong --Michielverbeek 08:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Since there are distractions in the background (red) in my opinion in this case it is important to enhance and illuminate the subject to give it prominence. It's not an obligation, it's just advice from my point of view. --Terragio67 18:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • More opininons please --Michielverbeek 06:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO good as it is now. --Plozessor 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main subject is okay in my eyes but CAs in the background are too disturbing. --Milseburg 13:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Tournasol7, If you use Lightroom on the RAW file, it will be a quick and easy job to remove CAs . Then, It could be a good thing to perform a partial correction applying the automatic (A) option on Geometry (see the CW sloped building on the right). To conclude, IMO, the main subject lacks of continuity because it is too dark in the central part. The modification on the image subject that I proposed for download is deliberately overdone about the changes I made. This attempt was only to give you a clue on how the changes could be done, because the image is really nice. --Terragio67 06:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Michielverbeek 07:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)