Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 28 2019

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Shimul_tula_(cotton).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gossypium arboreumI. By User:Atiqur.Rahman --RockyMasum 18:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Eatcha 19:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Strong jpg artefacts in the sky for such a small size. --PtrQs 23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose - Strongly posterized sky with banding very evident at full-page size on my laptop. -- Ikan Kekek 07:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    •  Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle 23:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   -- Seven Pandas 11:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Audi_e-tron_Sportback,_GIMS_2019,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(GIMS1003).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Audi e-tron Sportback at Geneva International Motor Show 2019, Le Grand-Saconnex --MB-one 09:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     SupportGood quality. --Arabsalam 10:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Lacks sharpness. Sorry. --Ermell 10:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Ermell --Michielverbeek 17:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   -- Seven Pandas 11:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Incubator_Administrator.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Icon that typically represents the administrators on the Wikimedia Incubator. By User:ANGELUS --Piotr Bart 13:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Eatcha 05:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a QI to me, if any it should be the original logo (without the mob), but not all derivative works out of it --Poco a poco 08:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per poco. All these candidates are annoying, and way too simple, sorry. --Smial 12:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 23:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   -- Seven Pandas 11:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Commons_Administrator_2.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Icon that typically represents the administrators on the Wikimedia Commons. By User:ANGELUS --Piotr Bart 13:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 12:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a QI to me, if any it should be the original logo (without the mob), but not all derivative works out of it --Poco a poco 08:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per poco. All these candidates are annoying, and way too simple, sorry. --Smial 12:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 23:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   -- Seven Pandas 11:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Commons_Administrator.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Icon that typically represents the administrators on the Wikimedia Commons. By User:ANGELUS --Piotr Bart 13:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 07:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a QI to me, if any it should be the original logo (without the mob), but not all derivative works out of it --Poco a poco 08:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per poco. All these candidates are annoying, and way too simple, sorry. --Smial 12:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 23:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   -- Seven Pandas 11:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Sant-Marc_de_venise.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sant-Marc de venise. Lithography 1857 year. --Dmitry Makeev 11:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ineligible for QI: not a Commoners original work. --MB-one 23:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  CommentYes, lithographs from the private collection. My scans. You can see in the downloads - five scans of lithographs. --Dmitry Makeev 22:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very good, IMO. MB-one, it doesn't look like you have a valid reason to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek 08:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support A good scan, thank you! --Aristeas 17:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   -- Seven Pandas 11:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Les_Plus_Belles_Eglises_DU_Monde_-_Notre-Dame_de_Paris.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Notre-Dame de Paris. Lithography 1857 year. --Dmitry Makeev 01:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 03:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ineligible for QI: not a Commoners original work --MB-one 23:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't this a scan made by Commons user Dmitry Makeev?--Peulle 07:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Question @Knopik-som: Was the scan made directly from the original lithograph? If so, it would be eligible according to QI rules and you can disregard my vote. --MB-one 10:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  CommentYes, lithographs from the private collection. My scans. You can see in the downloads - five scans of lithographs. --Dmitry Makeev 22:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Knopik-som: Thanks for clearing that up. In that case. Please disregard my votes then for all scans. --MB-one 09:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very good quality, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 08:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   -- Seven Pandas 11:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Boulders_Beach_2019_5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination African penguins, Boulders Beach, Simon's Town, South Africa. --Kallerna 04:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment IMO JPEG artifacts, minor CAs and a little bit unsharp. Please check your image. Thank you. --XRay 05:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 12:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Issues not fixed. --XRay 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Sky is too blotchy in places, but the sharpness is IMO good. Please correct the blotching. -- Ikan Kekek 07:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. --Smial 12:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --MB-one 23:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough for me.--Fischer.H 15:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   -- Seven Pandas 11:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Pavo_cristatus_(Parque_Quevedo).009_-_Leon.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pavo cristatus (Indian peafowl) in Fonteculler (Culleredo, A Coruña, Galicia, España). --Drow male 11:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Websteralive 17:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp --Podzemnik 21:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Some of the color has been washed out. -- Ikan Kekek 08:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness.--Fischer.H 15:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   -- Seven Pandas 11:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Columba livia domestica.602 - La Virgen del Camino (Leon).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A chick and an egg in a nest of Columba livia domestica (pidgeon), in La Virgen del Camino (municipality of Valverde de la Virgen, León, Spain). --Drow male 08:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Websteralive 16:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite a unique shot but I think it could have been done in a better way - at least the string could have been pulled aside... I'd like to have other opinions so I'm sending it into discussion --Podzemnik 21:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - As you say, it's quite interesting. I think that considering the size of pigeon eggs, the quality is good enough. I also don't think the string is fatal to the quality of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek 08:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support good picture.--Fischer.H 15:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   -- Seven Pandas 11:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Gallus_gallus_domesticus_(Parque_Quevedo).009_-_Leon.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gallus gallus domesticus (rooster) in Parque Quevedo (León, Spain). --Drow male 09:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline I am borderline on this one. Harsh light and bottom crop is too tight. Seven Pandas 11:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Websteralive 17:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo with the many blurred flowers looks like a search picture; the colors of the cock are unnatural and his foot is too close to the bottom of the picture. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - When I lived in rural Malaysia, I saw roosters that looked as vivid as this and even more vivid every day. The light is harsh because it's shot at midday, but I think that and the crop are within the bounds of acceptability. Also, the photo is unsharp at full size but sharp at 300% of my 13-inch laptop screen, so in case anyone objects to the sharpness, I think it's good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 06:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The bird's head is out of focus.--Peulle 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Piotr Bart 01:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle. --Podzemnik 00:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle --Michielverbeek 19:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle, and lack of detail, --Cvmontuy 11:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   -- Seven Pandas 11:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Artistic-naked-woman.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination picture of a fine art female nudeI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:Personality rightsPersonality rights warningAlthough this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses. In these cases, a model release or other evidence of consent could protect you from infringement claims. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may be able to help you to obtain such evidence. See our general disclaimer for more information.The uploader asserts the following regarding consent of identifiable persons: I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown specifically consented to publication of this photograph or video.The uploader asserts the following regarding consent of identifiable persons: I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown specifically consented to publication of this photograph or video. By User:Destailleur --Websteralive 11:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much smoothing in face, throat and cleavage. For me these parts look rather like wax than real skin. --PtrQs 22:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Der Angemeldete-- 04:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per PtrQs. --Aristeas 09:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose zu stark bearbeitet. --Ralf Roletschek 10:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I would like to support it without that postprocessing. Is there more natural version available? --Palauenc05 13:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Michielverbeek 19:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Piotr Bart 20:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose her face really bothering me it feels like seeing a doll. --Aldnonymous 23:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann 04:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me, regardless of the issues mentioned --Uoaei1 06:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per PtrQs and others. --MB-one 23:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per PtrQs. Tournasol7 13:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed. --Smial 12:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 8 oppose → Declined   -- Seven Pandas 11:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)