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:
== February 11, 2024 ==
== February 11, 2024 ==
<gallery>
<gallery>
File:North-facing Jizo statue at Shitennō-ji, January 2024 - 1428.jpg|{{/Nomination|ENorth-facing [[:w:en:Kṣitigarbha|Jizo]] statue at [[:w:en:Shitennō-ji|Shitennō-ji]]. --[[User:Laitche|Laitche]] 08:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)|}}

File:Lille quai hegel peniche.jpg|{{/Nomination|Kok Piraat restaurant barge, Quai Hegel, in Lille, France --[[User:Velvet|Velvet]] 08:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)|}}
File:Lille quai hegel peniche.jpg|{{/Nomination|Kok Piraat restaurant barge, Quai Hegel, in Lille, France --[[User:Velvet|Velvet]] 08:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)|}}



Revision as of 08:28, 11 February 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]] 06:15, 9 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).


February 11, 2024

February 10, 2024

February 9, 2024

February 8, 2024

February 7, 2024

February 6, 2024

February 5, 2024

February 4, 2024

February 3, 2024

February 2, 2024

January 31, 2024

January 30, 2024

January 28, 2024

January 25, 2024

January 23, 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:Lepidoptera,_Krefeld_-_0785.jpg

  • Nomination Lepidoptera --Аныл Озташ 09:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose for now. This is a nice butterfly, but its genus should be identified at least. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Imelda_Sanmiguel_Sanchez_Mexican_politician.jpg

  • Nomination Portrait of Imelda Sanmiguel Sanchez, Mexican congresswoman. --Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas 00:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Some chroma noise, esp. on her neck and arm. --Tagooty 02:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  • No improvement. The file size is reduced from 3 MB to 1 MB which may cause loss of quality. --Tagooty 10:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Weird noise pattern on skin/hair in 100% view. --Аныл Озташ 17:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This looks like a scan from a printed photo. --Plozessor 06:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Bust_of_Bertie_Reed_1.jpg

File:Bust of Bertie Reed 1.jpg

  • Nomination Bust of Stanley John ("Bertie") Reed, sailor --Mike Peel 00:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bgag 00:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
     Support Sharp and well-framed. --OmegaFallon 03:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
     Question @User:Mike Peel: AFAIK there is no FOP in South Africa. The bust is from 2009. So this photo might be a copyvio. Am I right about this or why am I wrong? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose for now. No answer so far; let's discuss this. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Луга,_дома_по_Кингиссеппа_сверху.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Mill_Creek_Canyon_Earthworks,_Canada_Geese.jpg

  • Nomination Branta canadensis at the Mill Creek Canyon Earthworks, a public park in Kent, Washington. --Roc0ast3r 07:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree: Image quality in 100 % view, top crop. --Аныл Озташ 20:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)}
     Support Good --GoldenArtists 00:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

File:February_2024,_Seattle,_WA_-_052.jpg

  • Nomination Broad Street at Alaskan Way, Seattle --Another Believer 04:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Lacks detail IMHO --Poco a poco 06:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Kasteel_Tarasp_(Tarasp_Castle)_Scuol,_18-09-2023._(actm.)_08.jpg

  • Nomination Tarasp Castle Scuol, in Lower Engadin, Graubünden (Chapel)
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    This is extremely noisy, also it would need PC; as you don't have enough image to make the shrine vertical, you could probably try to achieve a reasonable perspective look (probably at least make the horizontals horizontal or something like that). --Plozessor 05:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
    Noise reduction applied! The chapel itself has sagged and is leaning. I can not do anything about that. See the sagging chapel in relation to the castle in the photo I put in the photo above. Thank you for your comment.--Agnes Monkelbaan 16:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
    Did you want to upload a new version? There is none, the noise is still there. Personally I don't have an issue with the perspective but with the massive noise. --Plozessor 19:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
    *✓ Done. Sorry, something went wrong.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, but the new version is still quite noisy. If you want move it to discussion. --Plozessor 18:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
    More opinions please.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I cannot see any disturbing noise here. The previous version was much noisier. However, the light is dull. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

File:20240122_blue_jay_casa_PD200729.jpg

  • Nomination Blue Jay, Close Up, Glastonbury CT USA --Pdanese 01:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bgag 04:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree Basically a very nice shot. But I think the photo is overprocessed, in particular there are heavily oversharpened areas right next to parts of the image that have been blurred by denoising. Less would be more. --Smial 12:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose yes, overprocessed. Charlesjsharp 09:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support a lot of digital processing (less would be even better). But the result is still significantly above our minimum standards. --MB-one 15:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial --Julesvernex2 18:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per MB-one. --Аныл Озташ 17:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)