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 9: Line 9:
== March 8, 2022 ==
== March 8, 2022 ==
<gallery>
<gallery>
File:Victoriano_Sánchez_Barcaiztegui._Ferrol._F-20.jpg|{{/Nomination|Victoriano Sánchez Barcaiztegui by Ponciano Ponzano, Ferrol F-20 --[[User:Lmbuga|Lmbuga]] 14:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)|}}
File:Victoriano_Sánchez_Barcaiztegui._Ferrol._F-20.jpg|{{/Nomination|Victoriano Sánchez Barcaiztegui by Ponciano Ponzano, Ferrol F-20 --[[User:Lmbuga|Lmbuga]] 14:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)|}}


File:Baiona_lmb-16.jpg|{{/Nomination|Castle of Monterreal, Baiona, Galicia (Spain). 16 --[[User:Lmbuga|Lmbuga]] 14:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)|}}
File:Baiona_lmb-16.jpg|{{/Nomination|Castle of Monterreal, Baiona, Galicia (Spain). 16 --[[User:Lmbuga|Lmbuga]] 14:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)|}}


File:Όμορφη_Εκκλησία_Αίγινας_1488.jpg|{{/Nomination|Omorfi Ekklisia, Aegina. --[[User:C messier|C messier]] 13:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)|}}
File:Όμορφη_Εκκλησία_Αίγινας_1488.jpg|{{/|Omorfi Ekklisia, Aegina. --[[User:C messier|C messier]] 13:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)|}}


File:Σουβάλα_1517.jpg|{{/Nomination|View of Souvala, Aegina. --[[User:C messier|C messier]] 13:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)|}}
File:Σουβάλα_1517.jpg|{{/Nomination|View of Souvala, Aegina. --[[User:C messier|C messier]] 13:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)|}}

Revision as of 14:46, 8 March 2022

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]] 08:43, 14 July 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).


March 8, 2022

March 7, 2022

March 6, 2022

March 5, 2022

March 4, 2022

March 3, 2022

March 2, 2022

March 1, 2022

February 28, 2022

February 27, 2022

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".


Consensual Review

File:Lince_ibérico_(Lynx_pardinus),_Almuradiel,_Ciudad_Real,_España,_2021-12-19,_DD_06.jpg

  • Nomination Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus), Almuradiel, Ciudad Real, Spain. --Poco a poco 19:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Pretty cat, but not sharp enough for QI, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 20:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, a pretty cat for which I drove 1000 Km, spent 2 days and waited for almost 10 hours to show up. The next one nominating another one with an iPhone from the Madrid zoo will be rewarded --Poco a poco 21:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Take it to CR if you like. -- Ikan Kekek 08:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No, will not argue about the status of the image, I just wanted to make people aware of the effort we sometimes put behind an image. Images like this are not comparable with those taken in a zoo and QI has unfortunately no rule to give those more value --Poco a poco 16:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment I surely appreciate your effort! I'm judging only the result. I do judge photos of wild animals taken in the field differently from photos shot in zoos. -- Ikan Kekek 19:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support While it may not be crispy, IMHO this image is QI and I would like to see the consensus in CR. --GRDN711 05:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Based on what is generally expected, I don't think this one is sharp enough for a 2021 QI.--Peulle 07:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perfect composition, lighting, and exposure, but unfortunately unsharp even at A4 Size, and very noisy in full size. A real pity. --Smial 12:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Perfect composition, lighting, and exposure. The noise seems to give it an artistic dimension. It's very pretty, and it looks artistic--Lmbuga 13:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Lince_ibérico_(Lynx_pardinus),_Almuradiel,_Ciudad_Real,_España,_2021-12-19,_DD_05.jpg

  • Nomination Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus), Almuradiel, Ciudad Real, Spain. --Poco a poco 19:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Pretty cat, but not sharp enough for QI, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 20:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO image is QI and would like to see consensus opinion. --GRDN711 05:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle 07:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perfect composition, lighting, and exposure, but unfortunately unsharp even at A4 Size, and very noisy in full size. A real pity. --Smial 12:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

File:2022._Castelo_de_San_Filipo._Cheminea._F-41.jpg

  • Nomination Castle of Saint Filipo, Ferrol, Galicia (Spain). F-41 --Lmbuga 12:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 12:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    one man's chimney can be another man's castle, but is this really a pic of Saint Filipo castle? --Virtual-Pano 12:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
     Info Yes, it is. The chimney may be later, I don't know. Inside the castle there is a hotel--Lmbuga 13:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Let's others think--Lmbuga 15:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good quality, but I think the filename should be changed to reflect the fact that we're looking at a chimney. -- Ikan Kekek 06:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks. Description changed: Chimney (probably from the hotel in the castle) inside the Castle of Saint Filipo, Ferrol, Galicia (Spain). In the name there is no lie--Lmbuga 12:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per above. -- Ikan Kekek 21:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Steindy 23:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

File:FC_Admira_Wacker_Mödling_vs._LASK_Linz_2018-08-12_(002).jpg

  • Nomination Pyry Soiri, footballplayer of FC Admira Wacker Mödling. --Steindy 00:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose toe cropped --Charlesjsharp 11:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • It's traditional that Charlesjsharp don't like my photos. Let's hear other votes please. --Steindy 18:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't mind the missing toe. Palauenc05 22:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do.--Peulle 11:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 11:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Mujertomandosol-MDP.jpg

  • Nomination Woman sunbathing in Mar del Plata, Argentina --Ezarate 00:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality Lmbuga 00:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. I see a lot of CAs. --Steindy 00:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
     Comment Not a lot. QI--Lmbuga 00:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Fixed Ezarate 11:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Question Still worth eliminating, no? -- Ikan Kekek 08:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo is crooked, has CA, has completely burnt highlights, but washed out shadow areas without details. Despite the high lighting contrast, it looks low-contrast and muddy. It also doesn't look really sharp, and positioning the subject centrally in the middle of the picture is not comprehensible from a compositional point of view. I don't know what the situation is with regard to the protection of personal rights in the country where the photo was taken, but in any case, a consensus to be photographed cannot be derived from the situation in which the photo was taken. Somehow this looks to me like a technically and creatively unsuccessful holiday snapshot. --Smial 17:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

File:2022-01-14_Women's_Sprint_at_2021-22_Oberhof_Luge_World_Cup_by_Sandro_Halank–091.jpg

  • Nomination Women's Sprint test event at the 2021/22 Oberhof Luge World Cup: Julia Taubitz (Germany) --Sandro Halank 21:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose face lacking sharpness, and noisy. --Tomer T 08:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good IMO Lmbuga 15:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support OK for me. --Palauenc05 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support True, her face and hair are noisy at full size on my 23.5-inch monitor, but not too much on my 13-inch, and I think the quality is good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 08:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --Smial 17:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Steindy 18:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

File:2022-01-14_Women's_Sprint_at_2021-22_Oberhof_Luge_World_Cup_by_Sandro_Halank–084.jpg

  • Nomination Women's Sprint test event at the 2021/22 Oberhof Luge World Cup: Madeleine Egle (Austria), Julia Taubitz (Germany), Natalie Geisenberger (Germany) --Sandro Halank 21:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose unsharp. --Tomer T 08:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good IMO--Lmbuga 15:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support OK for me. --Palauenc05 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 08:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. @Sandro Halank: It would be nice if the photos showing several people were annotated (see example), or at least had an exact description. --Steindy 18:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

File:LG_market_square_Ukraine_solidarity_small_planet_265°_shrinked.jpg

  • Nomination Stitched panorama presented as little planet with a focus on the illuminated townhall and candles around a statue --Virtual-Pano 22:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Interresting perspective, good quality. --Steindy 10:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
    Not sure about this. Pebbles are sharp, but many of the buildings aren't, and seems overprocessed. I understand this is a high res photo, but better discuss this. --Tomer T 09:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support I have to agree that the pebbles are disproportionately sharper than the buildings, but as a whole I think it is sufficient for quality image status. --aismallard 13:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good quality Lmbuga 19:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose OK, it's a very big file, but the tower of the town hall at the top of it looks unsharp and weird even at 40% of full size. I have to reduce it to 30% for it to look fairly OK, and there's still a lot of noise in the sky at that size. Even at merely full-page size, I see a bunch of lens flares. It could be that I'm concentrating too much on the trees and losing the forest - the artistry - somewhat. If so, I'm sure you all will overrule me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support I am always a little unclear what to do with photos in this presentation. But you can print it in acceptable sharpness about one metre wide and one metre high. For me, that's good enough. --Smial 17:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks for bringing the noise and lack of focus to my attention. The initial upload was simply a work in progress file and should not have been uploaded. The current version is correct but just quarter size --Virtual-Pano 22:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Steindy 18:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

File:20181208_JMSDF_Lockheed_P-3_Orion_landing_Naha_Air_Show_2018-39.jpg

  • Nomination A JMSDF Lockheed P-3 Orion landing at the Naha Airport. --Balon Greyjoy 23:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --aismallard 06:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Under-exposed but may be salvageable. See what you can do with post-processing. --GRDN711 23:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support QI to me --Sandro Halank 14:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good image, but underexposed IMO. Solvable--Lmbuga 16:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Smial 21:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 14:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

File:20181208_JMSDF_Lockheed_P-3_Orion_landing_Naha_Air_Show_2018-40.jpg

  • Nomination A JMSDF Lockheed P-3 Orion landing at the Naha Airport. --Balon Greyjoy 23:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --aismallard 06:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Under-exposed even with a gray day. Rather than nominate 5 under-exposed examples of the same image, suggest you pick the best; post-process to compensate for the under-exposure and nominate one. --GRDN711 23:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support QI to me --Sandro Halank 14:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good image, but underexposed IMO. Solvable --Lmbuga 16:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Smial 21:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 14:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

File:2021-12-07_Fußball,_Männer,_UEFA_Champions_League,_RB_Leipzig_-_Manchester_City_FC_1DX_2828_by_Stepro.jpg

  • Nomination Men's Soccer, UEFA Champions League, RB Leipzig - Manchester City FC: Mohamed Simakan (RB Leipzig, 2), header. By --Stepro 23:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose PoV, crop at top --Charlesjsharp 11:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    I would accept the decline, but I don't understand the reason. --Stepro 12:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    sorry, crop at bottom with floating head, not top --Charlesjsharp 21:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support If you look at it just as a series of forms, it's unconventional but interesting; however, I expect Charles' viewpoint to carry the day. -- Ikan Kekek 08:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks. I didn't understand the supposed problem at the top of the picture, which Charles has then corrected. I can at least understand the problem with the head at the bottom, even if I see it differently. It could easily be removed, but I intentionally left it in the picture to illustrate the jump height. I always think that pictures are allowed to have a message instead of just being "beautiful". ;-) --Stepro 17:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. But outside-the-box photos often have a hard time here. -- Ikan Kekek 19:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the head at the bottom is disturbing. --Sandro Halank 14:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Head is disturbing Imo--Lmbuga 17:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 14:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Beijing_Dong'anmen_Dajie-20071019-RM-211928.jpg

  • Nomination Donghuamen Night Market --Ermell 09:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Imehling 16:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred image IMO--Lmbuga 16:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I realize that you can't expect continuous sharpness from front to back in the given lighting situation, but I can't find a really sharp area in the shot at all. In addition, the image description is really poor. On the other hand, I find the image composition quite appealing. Too bad it's not technically convincing. --Smial 10:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others: good photo, but not a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 22:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, too blurry --aismallard 12:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enough --Sandro Halank 14:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 14:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)