Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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]] 22:31, 14 November 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).


November 14, 2024

edit

November 13, 2024

edit

November 12, 2024

edit

November 11, 2024

edit

November 10, 2024

edit

November 09, 2024

edit

November 08, 2024

edit

November 07, 2024

edit

November 06, 2024

edit

November 05, 2024

edit

November 04, 2024

edit

November 03, 2024

edit

November 02, 2024

edit

October 31, 2024

edit

October 29, 2024

edit

October 23, 2024

edit

October 21, 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:2023_Dacia_Sandero_III_DSC_6012.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Dacia Sandero III in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 09:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 10:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The roof and windshield are a little too bright, the sheets on the dashboard are distracting, and the surroundings in which the car is photographed are extremely unpleasant. The license plate is also missing. In my opinion, the photo is not QI; please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The exposure seems acceptable to me and I don't care about the licence plate, but I have to agree with Spurzem on all other points. --Smial 21:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a car for sale at a dealership, so it has papers in the windshield and no license plate in reality. The surroundings are what they are; for my taste the car is adequately standing out from the background. That dealership's yard is apparently not beautiful, but it's supposed to be a documentary image, not a work of art. --Plozessor 03:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor.--Peulle 10:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: According to the description, the idea is to show an attractive picture of a Dacia Sandero III, not necessarily a car that is not yet registered and is parked in an unattractive yard. When I see something like that, I automatically think of the photo of the black cat in the dark basement with no light. There was nothing better to get than a dark rectangle. Maybe it would be a QI if I were to present it. Best regards -- Spurzem 12:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The description does not say anything of the sort. It simply states what kind of car it is.--Peulle (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
... and this car is presented in an extremely unattractive way. If I were the manufacturer, I would complain. ;-) -- Spurzem 14:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The image description is therefore incomplete; in the case of photos of people, it is usually also required that the circumstances of the photo shown be described, for example the location and name of an event and not simply the name of the person photographed. --Smial 15:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 19:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 10:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

File:S-charl,_Clemgia_zijrivier_van_de_Inn._12-10-2024._(d.j.b)_07.jpg

edit

  • Nomination S-charl, rapids in the mountain stream Clemgia, a tributary of the Inn.
    --Famberhorst 05:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I don't think these are natural colors and the water looks like plastic due to intensive processing IMO. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 01:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see anything wrong here. The water looks like it does due to (probably intentional) long exposure. --Plozessor 05:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Just want to clarify my objection. This picture looks more like a wallpaper generated by AI than a natural landscape. It seems ugly and unnatural to me. No offense to the photographer, of course. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed and partly noisy. --Smial 18:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: The photo was taken with a long exposure time (8 sec.) on purpose. This was done with a gray filter. This will make the water look smooth. That was the intention. I did not sharpen the photo any more.--Famberhorst 18:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support With 8 s exposure time for a fast flowing alpine river the water looks as it looks like here. Colors are ok, too. --Zinnmann 18:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 10:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Puente_de_Sheikh_Jaber_Al-Ahmad_Al-Sabah,_ciudad_de_Kuwait,_Kuwait,_2024-08-12,_DD_17.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah Bridge, Kuwait City, Kuwait --Poco a poco 07:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Image is stretched out horizontally. ReneeWrites 08:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version --Poco a poco 19:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The image has been cropped, but it still looks stretched out horizontally to me, especially on the left side. ReneeWrites 16:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree, I already applied a change of the aspect ratio although I hadn't applied a persepctive correcion. It's a wide angle shot, everything looking normal IMHO. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 15:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective and aspect ratio seem perfectly fine to me. Sharpness is adequate for f/11 which was chosen for a good reason. --Plozessor 05:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 14:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The picture is supposed to show the bridge, but most of it is lost in the pixel swamp. Sry. --Mosbatho 18:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Already two very similar QIs, and - bridge is far on the horizon. --Kallerna 09:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good shot over the distance and interesting. --Milseburg 17:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 17:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Kamp-Lintfort,_St._Josef,_2024-10_CN-01.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Catholic St. Joseph's Church in Kamp-Lintfort, Germany. --Carschten 15:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Berthold Werner 15:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The tower looks too distorted and the east side is too dark. Please compare this version. In my opinion, the image proposed for evaluation is not a QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 07:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Plozessor 12:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Sebring12Hrs 13:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Hallo Tournasol7, Plozessor and Sebring12Hrs, it is interesting to see: If the vertical lines are vertical, the photo is a QI, no matter how distorted it is otherwise. Best regards -- Spurzem 19:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please.... Every perspective correction distords buildings, in this case I don't see a big distorsion. --Sebring12Hrs 22:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
@Sebring12Hrs: Look at the spire and the line above the clock. Both look very unnatural and could be better represented in the picture. See my edit. -- Spurzem 09:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 10:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Westmount_Public_Library_by_Rodrigo_Tetsuo_Argenton_(02).jpg

edit

  • Nomination Westmount Public Library greenhouse --Rodrigo.Argenton 09:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Needs a white balance adjustment ReneeWrites 10:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)  Support White balance is fine, see clarification below. Beautiful photo! ReneeWrites 10:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree; this is not a quality "issue", and also it is very similar light of the moment. Rodrigo.Argenton 13:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Color balance could be a bit colder, but it's also ok as it is. Unfortunately there is no EXIF data and we don't know at which time of day the picture was taken, the yellowish hue might even be realistic. --Plozessor 05:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment EXIF data says the picture was last edited at 11:39, though I'm unsure if that meant that's when the picture was taken. Another photo of the same set is at File:Westmount Public Library by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (04).jpg which shows a similar (though stronger) yellow hue. It's not realistic lighting even if the place was basking in morning/evening glow. And I'm not saying the yellow hue needs to be removed entirely, but I do think it should be adjusted. ReneeWrites 10:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I understand you had some thoughts about the photo. Given the time of day/location/and wildfire 1, I think the lighting is pretty accurate.
The "last edited" timestamp probably just means when the photo was exported.
We're mainly focused on the first photo for now. We can discuss the second one later. Edited version from -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the clarification. Could you add in the photo's description a bit about the unusual high level of air pollution at that time and place? There was nothing about that in the description or any of your other comments, so I didn't know about it, but it's an important bit of context. After that I will withdraw my opposing vote. ReneeWrites 10:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
ReneeWrites done; for some reason, I can't include links from the history here. Rodrigo.Argenton 01:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Sarlat-la-Canéda_-_Place_de_la_Liberté_-_1.jpg

edit

  • Nomination: Sarlat-la-Canéda (Dordogne, France) - Liberty square --Benjism89 10:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 04:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Something is off with the sky colors (parts of the sky are just plain purple). Sharpness is borderline. About the blurred faces, personally I don't have an issue with them but in general they are usually not appreciated here, and for scenes like this not necessary. --Plozessor 04:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree for the blurred faces. --Sebring12Hrs 04:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Indeed, part of the sky was purple and contrast in the sky was a bit unnatural, so I adjusted WB and decreased a bit sky contrast. I may also have blurred faces that were too small to be recognised, so I unblurred the furthest. But it's the first I read that blurring people's faces is "usually not appreciated here" : I'd be happy to read any discussion about this matter that you could find. --Benjism89 17:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is acceptable now. About the blurred faces, I can't link to a discussion with real arguments (besides 'it's not necessary' or 'we don't do that'), but per my personal understanding of German law, a picture like yours would be allowed without blurring the faces because it's a public location and it's large number of people. I don't know French law though. --Plozessor 04:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I personally cannot abide the blurred-out faces.--Peulle 09:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The highlights in the clouds are blown out; sharpness in the corners drastically drops off; the blurred faces: not necessary, not appealing. --Zinnmann 07:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment About blurring people's faces (although here is probably not the good place to discuss this) :
    • From a legal point of view : I am not a lawyer but in my understanding (based on reading several articles on law or photography websites), there is no clear limit in French law between one's right to privacy and the photographer's right to freely distribute his work. Recent case law has considered that a picture of recognizable adult people in a public space could be distributed without any need for prior approval, but that any of the recognizable people could sue the photographer (and win) if they prove they suffered harm from the picture. Which is impossible to know without asking : I have no idea if someone in this picture, for instance, is on a sick leave and could get fired if their employer sees my photograph, or is cheating on his wife/husband who might ask for divorce, etc. In my understanding, uploading to Commons a picture taken in France where people are recognizable and didn't consent creates a tiny, yet existing risk for the photographer.
    • From an ethical point of view : many people don't like being photographed by a stranger. Of course, people in this picture could have run out of my picture, but they might not have seen me. And most of all, they probably assumed this picture was for a personal use, not that I was going to post it to one of the world's most popular websites. I feel that it would be unfair to these people not to blur their faces, unless their faces add something to the image I've created : but I believe it doesn't, these people were here by accident, and their faces and bodies anyway hide the buildings behind them.
    • This is why I always blur people's faces in the architecture / landscape photographs I upload to Commons. --Benjism89 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Benjism89: If you feel like a discussion is out of place here, there is always the option of using the QIC discussion page. It's certainly an interesting discussion, this, so there's no reason why you shouldn't bring up your views there. As for my position on this: 1) I applaud your sentiment of wanting to protect peoples privacy. However, there's a difference between being photographed in a private setting or as a closeup, and being photographed as part of a public scene. Laws are clear on this: there is no expectation of privacy in public spaces. When you're sitting outside in a town square, you can't expect people not to see you. With cameras being ever-present in today's world, we also can't expect not to be photographed when people take pictures of the place you are in. In effect, your presence becomes de minimis, and people's right to photograph a landscape supercedes individuals' right to privacy. That privacy is only invaded when the photographer clearly focuses on a single individual, e.g. shooting a closeup of a person eating dinner. 2) There are cases of lack of privacy becoming a real problem rather than inconvenience. For instance, there are people out who suffer from stalking and would prefer not to be photographed in any way. This, however, is a much bigger problem with regards to social media than what we find on Commons. This is the world we live in but it is a problem affecting all of society, not just Wikimedia. We can't solve those problems. If people feel getting tagged and recognized in images online is a big problem, it needs to be tackled politically, for instance by having countries create laws against Meta's information gathering and sharing. 3) There is nothing that stops a Commoner from censoring their images this way, if they feel the way you do. But I feel that such edits do disqualify an image from becoming a QI, as they suffer from the "disturbing element" problem.--Peulle 11:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
A very detailed and satisfying argumentation, good work :) --PantheraLeo1359531 13:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
@Peulle: I understand your point of view, although I don't share it : blurring a tiny part of a picture, where the subject is not visible anyway, does not create a big issue for the quality of the image and is highly acceptable to protect one's privacy, in my opinion.
But just to be clear : you state that "Laws are clear on this: there is no expectation of privacy in public spaces". Maybe elsewhere, but not in France. As I stated above, there is no law in France establishing a limit between photographers' rights and image rights. Only court judgements can suggest where the limit is, and the judgement quoted in most French websites about this matter (CA Paris, 05/11/2008, "François-Marie Bannier" (in French, sorry)) states that (my translation) "Image rights should give way to freedom of speech (...) unless a publishing attacks one's dignity or has for this person consequences of significant gravity". Most photographers in France, including professionnals, believe that the risk that a picture they took may have consequences of significant gravity is a tiny risk, and that's true, but the risk does exist. Most photographers in France also take pictures of recent buildings because the risk of being sued is close to zero, but we still ban these images here because there is no FOP in France ... And according to French government's website (still in French), although no law establishes this, a written consent is necessary whenever you're photographed in a public place, and you're isolated from a group and recognizable. And even if you're in a group, the same website says you need to consent to any photograph with a commercial use. Parents also need to consent to any photograph of an under-18, whether they're in a group or isolated. So no, French laws are not clear on this ... --Benjism89 22:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 10:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)