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]] 07:34, 29 May 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).


May 29, 2024[edit]

May 28, 2024[edit]

May 27, 2024[edit]

May 26, 2024[edit]

May 25, 2024[edit]

May 24, 2024[edit]

May 23, 2024[edit]

May 22, 2024[edit]

May 21, 2024[edit]

May 20, 2024[edit]

May 19, 2024[edit]

May 18, 2024[edit]

May 17, 2024[edit]

May 16, 2024[edit]

May 15, 2024[edit]

May 14, 2024[edit]

May 13, 2024[edit]

May 12, 2024[edit]

May 8, 2024[edit]

May 5, 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:Antïlope_acuático_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_40.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Waterbucks (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda --Poco a poco 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose The author is not a Wikipedia member. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    This series of comments looks like vandalism. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Antïlopes_acuáticos_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_41.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Waterbucks (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda --Poco a poco 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose The author is not a Wikipedia member. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    Author is the long-time Wiki member and it's quite easy to verify this fact. Your objection looks very strange. --Екатерина Борисова 02:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Antílope_acuático_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus_defassa),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_25.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Waterbucks (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda --Poco a poco 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose The author is not a Wikipedia member. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Iberostar,_Barcelona_(P1170607).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tower of Banesto building at Plaça de Catalunya, Barcelona --MB-one 07:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, I know the tower is the subject, but that left crop is really distracting, cutting off the banner text like that. --Peulle 11:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support. I think it's good that only part of the advertising can be seen. I just wish the square and trees were a little brighter. I therefore vote with a weak pro and ask for discussion. -- Spurzem 13:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Santa-Anna_detail_de_Maria_Anton_Pitscheider_Menza.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of Saint Ann, Mary detail, by Maria Anton Pitscheider Menza --Moroder 10:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Parsa 2au 10:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, most of the subbject is out of focus. --Benjism89 11:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DoF and motion blur --Jakubhal 05:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry even at 3 MP, and really blurry and noisy at full resolution. --Plozessor 05:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Again  Neutral. nice lighting, and composition. I find the image noise quite acceptable in this case, and I accept the DOF as a design element, even if it is a bit tight, but it does look blurred to me due to camera shake. --Smial 14:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Warsaw_2023_012.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tops Sigismund's Column & Royal Castle Tower, Warsaw --Scotch Mist 07:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Quality is good. But needs a more meaningful file name and on the file page a specific description of the image content instead of general information about Warsaw --Milseburg 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review - the file name is essentially compliant with QI guidelines (meaningful name\frequent categorizing), the caption includes image specific information and the description, as well as providing some background history contains direct Wikipedia links to both Sigismund's Column and the Royal Castle, which are also referenced in the categories. --Scotch Mist 08:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) I don't think so. File name and caption are too general. In the long description you have to look for Sigismund's Column for a long time and Zygmunt's Tower is not mentioned at all. The content of the image are these two. Both are necessary. Everything else just obscures what is actually important. --Milseburg 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    Given the relatively recent introduction of captions perhaps there should be a wider discussion on this subject relative to whether this image is acceptable for QI? --Scotch Mist 10:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the file name clearly fulfils criterion 2 of the file renaming guideline Commons:File renaming. This guideline lists an example "File:Paris 319.jpg" as a meaningless or ambiguous name ("only broad location"). In addition, the English description is bad because it contains a large and confusing quantity of information about the city, not just about the subject of the photo. The Polish description is shorter, but just about the city and the photographer's gallery. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree with Robert. File name should be more specific, and English description contains information that belongs into a Wikipedia article, not into the description of "what does this picture show". Also, not sure if it is written anywhere, but I think if a picture has descriptions in multiple languages, they should be identical. In this case, Polish description is totally different from the English one. I'd rename the file to something like "Sigimunds Column and Zygmunds Tower in Warsaw 2023.jpg" and replace the English description with a translation of the Polish one. --Plozessor 04:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment When renaming a file, the existing file name in a case like this should remain unchanged as a substring, as it is obviously a sorting criterion for the uploader. In any case, I get a sore throat when standardization fanatics think they have to remove my image numbers or other abbreviations they don't understand from the file names of my photos. Correcting spelling mistakes or short(!) additions are of course ok. However, comprehensive image descriptions belong in the image description, that's what it's there for. However, it should not contain an essay on the entire history of the city, country and ruling houses, but a brief and accurate description of the object depicted. In any case, placed at the beginning and easy to find. If you want to write a novel behind it, fine, you can. --Smial 15:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Smial: Yeah, I would never rename someone else's file unless it is clearly wrong (say, it would be "Heathrow airport.jpg" when it actually shows Frankfurt airport). In this case, a name like "Warsaw_2023_012 Sigismunds Column and Royal Castle Tower.jpg" would be appropriate, but I'd still leave that to the uploader. --Plozessor 03:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust: & @Plozessor: There are several pertinent issues in this discussion:
    • File Naming: Ideally, according to the naming “guidelines” (Commons:File naming), file names should be very specific with time information and without inappropriate terms or any confusing details, all of which could lead to some very long file names indeed (many names of nominated QI files are already ‘long’ even without including the recommended “year or date”). Realistically a balance generally has to be struck with the primary override that “the uploader’s choice should be honoured”. (“Renaming” files to avoid “ambiguity” (2) may not work in practice, especially when loading tens, or possibly hundreds, of files and seeking “harmonization” (4) of those files. “When in doubt, aim for a stable more generic name.”)
    • File Names v Captions v Descriptions: Presumably the recent introduction of “Captions” was not intended to simply repeat a detailed file name, or a relatively brief description, so presumably the caption is where a short description of the image should now be entered (for QI images an “accurate description on the file page”).
    • Descriptions: Certainly in the past there have been criticisms of including historical backgrounds of photos of places, monuments, et al, but also some have expressed praise for directly including such info along with the image, often a brief summary of some of the Wikipedia info with links to other Wikipedia pages (which is generally recommended within the Wikipedia\Wikimedia environment).
    • In summary, to achieve an appropriate balance (max info\min time) that will encourage the greatest number of contributions to Wikimedia Commons it would appear that File Names, Captions, Descriptions, and importantly also Categories, should be considered together in providing the overall level of detail that will in turn encourage further interest and wider use of all images uploaded, particularly QIs. --Scotch Mist 08:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose for now. Commons:File naming is not a guideline, but it also contains the following sentence: "The name should not consist primarily of a broad location, such as File:Paris 319.jpg, Ontario hill, or Japan train station, where the location is so large that only someone who knows the area very well can identify the image." My suggestion is that you could keep much of your naming scheme by adding the subject of the image. Even though it would be best if it came first in the file name, I suppose that it would be completely acceptahle after your image number, so that it does not disrupt your file naming scheme. In addition, at least in my opinion, a description should at least clearly say what can be seen on the image. Otherwise it is just not meaningful.--Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Understand your opinion but would respectfully suggest some key points have been missed:
  • We have automated sequential file naming on uploads for a reason - this function may be seldom exploited by those uploading files of individual plants and animals but personally I would not have loaded thousands of files of places I have visited without this function. Your suggestion of adding details after the sequential image number will not work for the hundreds of files I intended to nominate for QI without first renaming every file (effectively defeating the whole purpose of using the automated naming function).
  • The objective in now having a separate 'Caption' has not been explained - is it simply to mirror a short 'Description'? Certainly I could 'cut and paste' each Caption into the Description but is this really the most efficient manner of bringing more files into Wikimedia Commons or should in future I simply not waste time on Captions? Or, am I missing something here?
  • The statement that "Commons:File naming is not a guideline" would appear to be incorrect from my reading of this page, and the deficient example referenced does not include a recommended "year or date" (which also apparently is not included in files uploaded by yourself and others and nominated for QI).
As intimated in my 'summary' above, with the purpose of the Commons being to build a media file repository available to all, the more efficient the uploading process the greater the repository that we can all help to build! Please reconsider your opposition to promoting this file (and others) for QI as I believe the file name meets basic requirements and all necessary information is contained on the 'image file page' if one considers the 'Caption' as relevant. If not, then it would seem there is no point in completing 'Captions' and I should modify my existing nominations accordingly but thank you for considering these additional comments! --Scotch Mist 06:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Murmuration_(_agrégation)_d'un_groupe_d'étourneaux_sur_la_sebkha_de_Sijoumi.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Murmuration (aggregation) of a group of starlings on the Sijoumi sabkhaI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Like the image but would like to see a effort to reduce the vignetting, particularly on the left. --GRDN711 12:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    i will see tomorrow to fix the vignettage you see , particularly on the left. Thank you --Skander zarrad 13:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done i fix it, thank you --Skander zarrad 21:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I can see that you have lightened the image overall in your latest upload (which is good) but the left corners are still darker than the rest indicating vignetting. --GRDN711 12:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_41.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Maiden's Sad Expression - Tears of Fountain Sculpture in Łódź Palace Garden --Scotch Mist 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose disturbing artifacts, probably water drops. Sorry. --Moroder 10:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for review although of course there are "water drops" as the statue is in a water fountain (a different scenario from photographing a sculpture in a church), but the most prominent water drop appears like a 'tear' from the sad face of the maiden creating a unique image! --Scotch Mist 22:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_43.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Roof Top Sculpture at Łódź Palace --Scotch Mist 08:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose The head of the statue is too unsharp. --C messier 20:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review - is the image QI level with a more appropriate title such as "Roof Top Wrought Iron Work at Łódź Palace"? --Scotch Mist 06:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose wrong focus, per C Messier. --Smial 15:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC) (otherwise: disturbing background)
  •  Oppose Focus on the handrail, instead of the statue. Unappealing composition with distracting foreground and black shadows -- Basile Morin 04:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_13.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Poznański Palace in Łódź --Scotch Mist 05:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I guess all those wires are disturbing --Moroder 16:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Agree, but there is no way to take a photo from this perspective without the wires and perhaps why we should avoid installing overhead cables where possible! --Scotch Mist 06:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Wires are there, better to have a picture from a distance with the wires than one of these distorted over-"verticalized" pictures from near the building. Picture is good. --Plozessor 04:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for the file name and the description. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Dolfin-Wappen.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin (Count)--ZuppaDiCarlo 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ashoppio 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am very conflicted,can such a small image be of quality? I would like to hear an opinion from others as well. Thank you. --GoldenArtists 13:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Since it is a SVG file the resolution doesn't count. Ashoppio 16:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We had these discussions in the past, and there seems to be no rule that QI must be photos. This vector image seems to be good does not have any defects (I can't judge if it fully matches the original Coat of Arms though). --Plozessor 04:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Yoonit,_Cyclingworld_Europe_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170867).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Yoonit transport bike at Cyclingworld Europe 2024 in Meerbusch --MB-one 21:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Background is disturbing a bit but overall quality is good for me. --Красный 03:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing background. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. --Plozessor 06:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered background with beheaded people -- Basile Morin 04:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 04:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Sunrise_from_the_Vanjangi_hill_top.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sunrise from the summit of Vanjangi hills --IM3847 07:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. CAs an the ring-shaped light reflex on the right spoils it. --Milseburg 15:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a ring shaped glare on both sides. I don't know how to eliminate the rays artifact due to the shutter around the sun--Moroder 11:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi @Milseburg: , @Moroder: Can we consider [this image] --IM3847 05:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks better, but I think there's an additional problem with the composition. The person with the bottles is unfavorable and dominant in the image with his legs cut off. Also slight tilted. --Milseburg 09:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done with perceptive correction. --IM3847 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support To me it looks ok as it is (I would consider the halo rather an effect than a defect), but the retouched version seems ok also. Could consider slight perspective correction though, those distorted people in the foreground are looking a bit awkward. --Plozessor 06:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Plozessor --Scotch Mist 11:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Circular line / halo at the lower corners and yellowish cast as if the white balance was wrong, or the colors oversaturated -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Basile Morin 04:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:SchillerGym-Hof-Panorama_einfach_20240520.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Panorama of Schiller high school in Hof, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 15:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 15:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong WB? Very green. --ArildV 08:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per ArildV --Plozessor 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for the review, tried to reduce the green in this picture. I hope it is better now --PantheraLeo1359531 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The clouds on the top left do not meet QI standards. The building appears quite distorted in this representation. And I'm not sure about the file description. --Milseburg 14:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 14:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Altes_Rathaus_Bremen_-_Herolde_beim_SO-Portal_(2024).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Heralds at the south-east side of the town hall in Bremen --JoachimKohler-HB 03:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 04:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Good quality, but right side is leaning in. --Tournasol7 04:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tournasol7. --Smial 15:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1 --Peulle 11:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)