Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 22 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Pilze_003_2023_08_27.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tree stump with the bracket fungi Ganoderma adspersum
    --F. Riedelio 06:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Peulle 07:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, the tree and even a large part of the fungi are out of focus. --Benjism89 18:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Everything except for the lowest part out of focus and blurry, also a lot of chroma noise. --Plozessor 10:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 13:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Sasanian_art_in_Hermitage_by_Darafsh_Гл-980.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Seal of the grandee MahanEnglish: Adarmahan. By User:Darafsh --Lvova 06:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry:  Level of detail too low --F. Riedelio 05:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would like to hear more comments: this ring seal is very small and old, and I have an impression that it's natural detalisation (compare with an ideal conditions) is not a problem of the photo. Lvova 18:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment A macro lens would have produced better detail. The lighting is unfavorable (too bright at the top and too dark at the bottom).--F. Riedelio 09:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The object is simply too small to create a reasonable picture with a smartphone. --Plozessor 10:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With F. Riedelio. I think it is the result of intense cropping. --Augustgeyler 11:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 13:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Audi_A2_Concept,_IAA_2011,_Frankfurt_am_Main_(DSC03292).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Audi A2 Concept at IAA 2011, Frankfurt --MB-one 11:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Strange fringes between the two guys and the white background. Also visible in the car interior. --Sebring12Hrs 15:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's coming from the LED screen in the background. Since it was visible to the naked eye, I wouldn't classify it as a photgraphic defect. --MB-one 13:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I don't have an issue with the fringes, but with the focus being on the back wheel and the rest, especially the front, being blurry. --Plozessor 10:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 13:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Airbus_Beluga,_ILA_2024,_Schoenefeld_(ILA44680).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Airbus Beluga (F-GSTD) at ILA Berlin Air Show 2024 --MB-one 11:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 08:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the composition does not work well in combination with subject and description here. The description only tells about the Beluga as the only subject here. But the subject fills just 15 % of the frame and is partially blocked. There is no statement about the helicopter. So I think the main subject is not well composed with this frame. Please discuss. --Augustgeyler 16:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: Thanks for the review. Changed the file description to "Static display of Airbus Group at ILA Berlin Air Show 2024" ✓ Done --MB-one 11:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral  Thank you. The description is much better now. I am still not convinced with the composition and vote for neutral. --Augustgeyler 11:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 13:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Kaiser_i_Hind.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kaiser i Hind resting on a branch. By User:Dasrath Shrestha Beejukchhen --Nirmal Dulal 09:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 12:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. I corrected the category. But the coordinates are obviously wrong. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert. Picture itself is excellent, but probably it was not taken in the arctic ocean near the North Pole. Please fix coordinates, or remove coordinates and specify the rough location in the description. --Plozessor 08:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Fixed. --Plozessor 10:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Alright, now the coordinates are from Nepal. I removed my vote and I also corrected the SDC coordinates. However, is this a realistic location? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
     Info If it is not the real location (which the nominator might not know because only the author does), then please add the template {{location estimated}}. Thanks! --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Hi Robert, I asked the author about it and corrected the mistakenly misplaced number value of the geolocation (formerly 85.3847 in the north and 27.812 in the east, and now 85.3847 in the east and 27.812 in the north). Thanks! -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Sebring12Hrs 11:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 13:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Green_Imperial_Pigeon_facts_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Green Imperial Pigeon by Shiv's fotografia. --Satdeep Gill 00:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Drow male 20:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Is it upscaled? In full resolution it looks really soft and with halos. --C messier 20:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, below the QI-bar in detail and full resolution. --Milseburg 15:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Probably something went wrong with RAW conversion, this camera should do better at ISO 200. Looks like picture from cheap smartphone. --Plozessor 10:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Church_in_Csavoly_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church in Csávoly, Bács-Kiskun County, Hungary. --Tournasol7 04:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Was the photo taken just before a heavy thunderstorm or is it simply underexposed? In addition, the perspective correction does not seem to have been done optimally. Please discuss whether the photo is a QI or still needs to be improved. -- Spurzem 07:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It seems leaning out but actually the perspective is correct. Still the picture is severely underexposed. --Plozessor 08:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, it was before the storm, and it was a very rainy day. Until midday it was still tolerable (in spite of a little rain) and it was still possible to take pictures, but after midday it started raining so hard that I didn't take any more pictures that day. Spurzem, Plozessor; I have lightened the picture a bit, is it better? --Tournasol7 18:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Tournasol7: Yes, better now and  Support from me. Still, many of your recent pictures are very good but also very dark. I was thinking whether maybe your screen is set too bright ;) ... Most of them look better after simple automatic contrast stretching. --Plozessor 10:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The perspective is not ok, the perspecrive is too much corrected, come on... In addition, not so dark for a bad weather. --Sebring12Hrs 19:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Spurzem. --GRDN711 18:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --GoldenArtists 20:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Une_abeille_entrain_de_butiner_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: a bee foraging 2I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 19:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Depth of field issues. --Sebring12Hrs 15:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This one's more tricky, as not the entire body of the bee is in focus, but the parts that are are amazingly detailed. I also adore the pose. I doubt it'll pass review but it's worth giving a shot. ReneeWrites 19:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Supporting this. --Plozessor 06:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Me too. The subject is the bee, and its head is in sharp focus. Bahnfrend 08:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I'm not impressed. The bee is only very slightly sharp and the flower is too bright. -- Spurzem 11:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose. Nice composition, DOF seems ok, noise and general sharpness acceptable for an A4 size print, regarding the image resolution, but burned highlights. A pity. --Smial 12:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Not a perfect image (DOF, slightly burnt) but good enough for QI for me given the subject. --Benjism89 17:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with the idea that it is good enough for QI. Lvova 21:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Very good composition. But burned out highlights at the flowers are making it not QI for me. --Augustgeyler 07:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 10:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)