Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 26 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Boats_at_Muzhappilangad_Beach.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Boats at Muzhappilangad Beach, Kannur --Gnoeee 08:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality--Horst J. Meuter 09:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I fear it is leaning to the left (see the horizon). In addition, there are compression artefacts e.g. in the sky and at the horizon. --Aristeas 11:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 Comment I don't see these artifacts. However, the horizon is tilted and the boats on the left and right are cut. Too bad. Otherwise it would be a very nice picture. -- Spurzem 14:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see the artefacts, but even without them, this strong tilt can't be a QI.--Peulle 19:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Un_vieux_pont_à_Grand-Popo_au_Bénin1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An old bridge at Grand-Popo in Benin --Adoscam 14:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good image and good quality -- Spurzem 16:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice but I think it's tilted to the right. Please also add geolocation --Podzemnik 01:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 Comment I am always amazed when defective pictures sometimes are awarded, but on the other hand, the smallest complaints can lead to decline. The picture of this bridge is very good for me, although perhaps not excellent. -- Spurzem 12:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I on the other hand am amazed when people overlook clear flaws and vote to promote images anyway. This one has a fairly good composition, but is littered with CA on the crossbeams, has blown highlights and generally washed out details.--Peulle (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, there are slight CAs and If you look for more mistakes, you will find them. -- Spurzem 20:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Uh... yeah, this is QIC, we review images, of course we should look for possible mistakes.--Peulle 19:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 15:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Bos_taurus.007_-_San_Emiliano_(Leon).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cow (Bos taurus), in San Emiliano (León, Spain).--Drow male 14:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice and good quality -- Spurzem 15:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Isn't WB off? Please discuss --Podzemnik 01:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks somewhat blueish, but not disturbing imho. --Smial 10:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB would be corrected. --Tournasol7 15:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Also lacking sharpness.--Peulle 19:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Bos_taurus.008_-_San_Emiliano_(Leon).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cow (Bos taurus), in San Emiliano (León, Spain).--Drow male 14:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it's too soft and too blue. Please discuss --Podzemnik 05:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree. Also, the chroma noise is an issue.--Peulle 19:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)