Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Line 8: Line 8:
== August 19, 2024 ==
== August 19, 2024 ==
<gallery>
<gallery>
File:033_Saddle-billed_stork_landing_in_the_Serengeti_National_Park_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg|{{/Nomination|Saddle-billed stork landing in the Serengeti National Park --[[User:Giles Laurent|Giles Laurent]] 09:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)|}}

File:034_Saddle-billed_stork_spreading_wings_in_the_Serengeti_National_Park_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg|{{/Nomination|Saddle-billed stork spreading wings in the Serengeti National Park --[[User:Giles Laurent|Giles Laurent]] 09:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)|}}


File:Privatbankens_hus_August_2024_01.jpg|{{/Nomination|Privatbankens hus is a historic commercial building in Ystad. --[[User:ArildV|ArildV]] 09:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)|}}
File:Privatbankens_hus_August_2024_01.jpg|{{/Nomination|Privatbankens hus is a historic commercial building in Ystad. --[[User:ArildV|ArildV]] 09:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)|}}



Revision as of 09:20, 19 August 2024

Nominations

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]] 12:37, 12 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).


August 19, 2024

August 18, 2024

August 17, 2024

August 16, 2024

August 15, 2024

August 14, 2024

August 13, 2024

August 12, 2024

August 11, 2024

August 10, 2024

August 9, 2024

August 7, 2024

August 6, 2024

August 5, 2024

August 1, 2024

Consensual review

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:Kühlungsborn,_Buhne_--_2024_--_4840.jpg

  • Nomination Groynes on the coast in Kühlungsborn, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany --XRay 02:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Insufficient DoF, very little in focus. --Tagooty 03:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your review. IMO the DoF is good for the effect. --XRay 08:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI imo. I like the small dof here. --ArildV 13:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Foundation_series_Cybertruck_at_dusk_in_San_Jose_dllu.jpg

  • Nomination A Foundation Series Tesla Cybertruck seen in south San Jose. --Dllu 01:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree; composition is good, but especially the rear is not sharp and somehow washed out. --Alexander-93 10:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Martin_church_in_Znin_(7).jpg

  • Nomination Saint Martin church in Znin, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voiv., Poland. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 08:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose A nice and wide composition. But I think there was too much PC involved here. This results in an unrealistic reproduction of the proportions (see this as reference). Additionally the right building is leaning out. --Augustgeyler 10:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It needs to be discussed. --Sebring12Hrs 10:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The unnatural curve of the church as it appears in the picture does not correspond to reality. See the view in Google Maps. -- Spurzem 12:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The church is surely not curved in reality. If this is a panorama, should use a different projection. If it was a single shot with a wide-angle lens, it can probably be fixed with Photoshop "Spherize" function, lens corrections during raw conversion, or similar. --Plozessor 03:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 03:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Oxford_2024_038.jpg

  •  Weak oppose Perspective and exposure improved. Sharpness remains borderline. --Augustgeyler 19:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 10:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    • @Augustgeyler and Sebring12Hrs: Perspective redone, sharpened, plus a few other tweaks while I was at it. How does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
      •  Support Sharpness is not the best, but ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Still a bit dark, and at the top strongly distorted due perspective correction, but overall OK IMO. --Plozessor 03:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 03:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Charleroi_-_rue_du_Fort_66_-_2024-08-05_-_01.jpg

  • Nomination Charleroi (Belgique) - Maison située rue du Fort numéro 66. --Jmh2o 08:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Left crop isn't optimal. --Sebring12Hrs 08:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Jmh2o 10:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strong PC led to unrealistic proportions here (see the elliptic traffic sign on the left) --Augustgeyler 21:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hello, I actually retouched the image. But I don't think the proportions have become unrealistic. I uploaded the original image to compare with the edited image. Sincerely. File:Charleroi - rue du Fort 66 - 2024-08-05 - 01 - original.jpg (Google translate) --Jmh2o 07:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Jmh2o, I’m sorry to say this, but seeing the original image was quite surprising for me. I hadn’t expected such a drastic difference. The unedited image clearly reveals how challenging the original perspective was: the camera angle was very close, positioned high up, not centred, and slightly tilted. To create the final image, a significant amount of processing was needed. In my opinion, we should invest more effort at the location (in this case, perhaps waiting for the car to be moved, or using a tripod for a higher angle) rather than relying heavily on post-processing. Alternatively, if it's not possible to achieve a geometrically accurate image due to the circumstances, we could consider nominating it as a Valued Image instead of a Quality Image. In this case, the result appears  Overprocessed. --August (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment When you see Velvet or Tournasol7 pictures, this is the same thing. You can't take good pictures in thoose very tight streets. You need to correct the perspective. --Sebring12Hrs 09:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • If so you have to except that we can sometimes not get QIs form some objects. But in this special case the original image was taken without doing everything to get the best possible. It was not even taken from a centred position. --Augustgeyler 09:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: merci pour les conseils. --Jmh2o 17:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Le 5 août, j'ai eu plus de chance (Category:Rue de la Science (Charleroi)). Une seule voiture dans la rue. Mais, c'était les vacances scolaires, et derrière moi, il y avait une école. --Jmh2o 17:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • [Translated with AI] Oui, Jmh2o, la plupart des autres images de la catégorie semblent nettement meilleures. Il semble qu'il ait été nécessaire de faire moins de corrections sur celles-ci. En plus, tu as pu te placer dans un point de vue central pour de nombreuses maisons, ce qui aide beaucoup. Cependant, le meilleur résultat ne peut être obtenu que si tu pouvais également élever la caméra à la moitié de la hauteur du bâtiment, par exemple en photographiant depuis le premier étage de la maison en face :-) . Mais je sais que cela n'est possible que dans des cas très particuliers, lorsque ce type d'accès se présente par hasard. Merci pour ton engagement à documenter toutes ces rues. --August (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK now. Contrast could be better, but it's acceptable. --XRay 07:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 08:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Phalempin_chemin_voie_ferree.jpg

  • Nomination Path along the railway, in Phalempin, France --Velvet 05:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 15:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows are too harsh IMO --Екатерина Борисова 02:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This one actually works for me. To get an image with this much shade looking as sharp as it is, is difficult. Commons needs images of things that are not in direct sunlight too.--Peulle 08:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Peulle. --Plozessor 04:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows must be improved. Otherwise OK. --XRay 07:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 07:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Vishnu_Pandal_Garhi_Padhavali_004.jpg

  • Nomination Panels in Vishnu Pandal Garhi PadhavaliI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2021. --Suyash.dwivedi 10:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 20:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is lacking sharpness and composition. It was taken from a slightly off angle and is tilted. --Augustgeyler 19:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler, could be fixed though. --Plozessor 04:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:M017F004_Schloss_Wilhelmsburg_und_Kirche_St._Georg_in_Schmalkalden.jpg

  • Nomination View through the west portal of Wilhelmsburg Castle onto the old town of Schmalkalden. --Augustgeyler 20:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry:  Level of detail too low, blurred, too low sharpness for QI. --F. Riedelio 14:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the image is sharp enough and hand as a normal level of detail. Looking for more opinions.--Augustgeyler 19:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think this one is too fuzzy, yes.--Peulle 08:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Is the first review perhaps a bit of a retaliation? A bit more sharpness would be desirable and the foreground could be brighter. But the image composition is very nice, I like it. -- Spurzem 10:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)~
  •  Oppose Sorry, yes, the composition is really great, but IMO it's too blurry and grainy for QI. However, there is also a disturbing scratch (?) right to the towers (above the clock tower in background, I guess this photo was digitized from an analog photo). That could be retouched I guess. --Plozessor 04:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Calanque_des_Eaux_Salées_4.jpg

  • Nomination Eaux-salées viaduct, Carry-le-Rouet. --Kallerna 10:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlights. Sorry. --Ermell 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. I like the composition. --Sebring12Hrs 11:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: Good composition but partly  Overexposed and blurred  Level of detail too low right third. --F. Riedelio 13:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support IMO acceptable. Hard to have both, shadowy parts as well as water reflecing bright sunlight, in the dynamic range of a single shot, but you also can't easily use HDR with a moving subject (like the waves). Right side is a bit blurry, but the bridge is framing, not the actual subject. --Plozessor 04:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Niasviž_Benedictine_Sisters_Convent_Tower_2023-07-02_6087.jpg

  • Nomination Benedictine sisters convent tower, Niasviž, Belarus‎. --Mike1979 Russia 06:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Intense PC let to distortion. --Augustgeyler 08:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't agree with you. The foto taken with 45mm focus on crop. The tower has the realistic proportions. --Mike1979 Russia 09:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture. I can't see any perspective distortion at all. ReneeWrites 22:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, there is no perspective distortion anymore. But the intense correction let to wrong proportions. See the buildings in the back for example. --Augustgeyler 05:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • You are very wrong. See the original file before corrections. The PC was minimal. And see other fotos of this object in the category. --Mike1979 Russia 05:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I am sorry. I miss interpreted your nomination. Thanks for clarifying. --August (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Krems_ad_Donau_Jahn-Denkmal_Stadtpark-8693.jpg

  • Nomination Monument to Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, city park of Krems an der Donau, Lower Austria --Isiwal 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has perspective distortion and looks slighty tilted cw. --Augustgeyler 04:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Antigua_ciudad_de_Herculano,_Italia,_2023-03-27,_DD_77-79_HDR.jpg

  • Nomination Antigua ciudad de Herculano, Italia, 2023-03-27 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 00:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 00:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose defects near the hole in the roof. --Kallerna 10:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 05:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Снегопад_над_озером_Каинды.jpg

  • Nomination Snowfall over Kaindy Lake, Kolsay Lakes national park, Kazakhstan. By User:MariSimonova --Екатерина Борисова 02:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 08:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shot with a camera, capable of 46,9 megapixel, this image has only 2,7 megapixel. This image must have been scaled down or heavily cropped. --Augustgeyler 04:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment probably taken over the lake, therefore certainly a section --Georgfotoart 12:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler because it's a landscape photo.--Peulle 08:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support It seems to comply with QI guidelines, also I really like the composition. Resolution is low but still meeting the standards. --Plozessor 04:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 17:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Selección_de_Voley_Argentina_previo_a_Paris_2024_-_BugWarp_(52).jpg

  • Nomination Argentina men's national volleyball team during their last training in Argentina before the start of the 2024 Summer Olympics. By User:BugWarp --MB-one 11:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose cut off hands. --Augustgeyler 04:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 23:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above. --XtraJovial 10:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The person being photographed has obviously positioned themselves for the photo, so it's not an action shot, where I'm normally quite tolerant in my judgement. If there was enough time for this, there would also have been enough time to choose a suitable focal length that doesn't look cartoonish and, above all, to make sure that the entire sports hall lighting isn't reflected in the glasses. The unfortunate cropping of the hands, on the other hand, is a minor detail. --Smial 12:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler and Smial. --Plozessor 04:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Tesla_Model_S_Plaid_Autofrühling_Ulm_IMG_9278_(cropped).jpg

  • Nomination Tesla Model S Plaid at Autofrühling Ulm 2024 --Alexander-93 07:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Well composed. But DoF is too small. Only the very front of the car is in focus. --Augustgeyler 08:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think sharpness and contrast can be improved and the crop should not be so tight. Therefore I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 14:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. Sharp enough overall, and no disturbing background. --Plozessor 16:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel 16:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Swindon_Steam_Railway_Museum_2024_252.jpg

  • Nomination GWR 7800 Class 7821 Ditcheat Manor on display in Designer Outlet Swindon, next to Swindon Steam Railway Museum --Mike Peel 05:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burned out highlights at the roof. --Augustgeyler 08:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: Difficult to avoid with the roof windows. I've uploaded a new version that reduces the impact, if that helps. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I think this information unfortunately is simply lost. --Augustgeyler 22:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Better quality now. XtraJovial 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --XtraJovial 18:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)