Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 25 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Monumento_Patricio_Aylwin_Azócar_-_A740483.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Patricio Aylwin Azócar Monument. --Rjcastillo 02:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose The head of the sculpture merges with the railing behind it. --Jakubhal 04:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice photo. It doesn't merge for me. -- Ikan Kekek 20:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The baluster behind the head merges into the centre of the forehead. Processing artifact? --Tagooty 02:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan --Sandro Halank 16:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 09:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Buddha_Close_Sani_Lake_Zanskar_Oct22_A7C_04221.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Buddha statue, Sani Lake, Zanskar --Tagooty 00:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 01:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose The focus is on the foreground, and the sculpture itself is blurred. --Jakubhal 04:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yeah, I think the statue is not sharp enough, and in addition, the contrast seems excessive to me, so perhaps another time of day or a cloudier day might be a more opportune moment to photograph this motif. -- Ikan Kekek 20:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enogh --Sandro Halank 16:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 09:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC))

File:Close wing moisture sucking and peeing activity of Papilio krishna (Moore, 1858) - Krishna Peacock (2) WLB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing moisture sucking of Papilio krishna (Moore, 1858) - Krishna Peacock (2) WLB --Anitava Roy 08:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 08:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose oversaturated colours --Charlesjsharp 14:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Palauenc05 21:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Palauenc05 --Sandro Halank 16:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 09:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

File:A_tributary_to_the_Stod_river1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A tributary to the river StodI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Sammandi 06:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support f/16 and 1/60 sec. might have been better, but good quality for the composition. --JoachimKohler-HB 08:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Choosen DOF isn't making a QI for me. --Milseburg 13:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Milseburg. Too much blurry foreground. -- Ikan Kekek 01:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support A really nice image idea very well implemented. The depth of field demanded by others would have been achievable here only by stacking - and would lead the image effect obviously desired by the photographer ad absurdum. As a weakness I would see at most some overexposed snow areas far in the background, but since they are very small and do not cause color distortions, they are negligible. --Smial 14:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment They might have been able to get a view with less blur by backing up. Perhaps not, but I haven't been there. Have you? -- Ikan Kekek 20:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 Comment The blur is an essential part of the composition, not a technical failure. I don't need to visit the location to recognize that. I am allowed to love this photo (and have factually justified it) and you are allowed to dislike it. --Smial 10:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. But I'm just addressing your argument by saying that I doubt the lesser amount of blurred area that several of us want would have to be created by focus stacking. After backing up, the photographer would have probably had to crop out some of the closest rocks. -- Ikan Kekek 17:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg. --Sebring12Hrs 17:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Milseburg --Sandro Halank 16:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 09:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

File:2023_Corsair_QL120_RGB_(1).jpg

[edit]

File:2023 Corsair QL120 RGB (1).jpg

  • Nomination Corsair QL120 RGB 1 --Jacek Halicki 06:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose I think the left-hand part is a copyright violation and would need to be blurred or cropped out. --Mike Peel 16:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 Support Good quality. Possible copyright violation may be discussed on the talk page of the image and/or nominate the image for deletion. Incidentally, many product images that include copyrighted elements such as design, layout, etc have been promoted as QI. --Tagooty 03:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:2023 Corsair QL120 RGB (1).jpg. Thanks. Mike Peel 10:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 09:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)