Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 31 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Theresienstein_20200323_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An abandoned path in the park Theresienstein. --PantheraLeo1359531 12:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 12:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Huge picture but looks pretty bad at 100%. Blue looks oversaturated --Podzemnik 21:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I have to agree. Blue looks oversaturated and the picture looks bad at 70% and not great at 60%. -- Ikan Kekek 01:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Hus_fra_Hallingdal_Drammen_Friluftsmuseum_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 1800s house from Hallingdal, now at the Drammen outdoor museum.--Peulle 11:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too blurry. --Ermell 23:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavourable lighting -- Spurzem 09:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Oppgangssag_Gunhildsrud_Drammen_Friluftsmuseum_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Frame saw from Gunhildsrud, put up as a "community saw" ca. 1809.--Peulle 11:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Far too dark IMO. --Ermell 23:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Ermell. -- Spurzem 09:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, the light conditions here were very difficult.--Peulle 17:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Flock_of_spoonbills.jpg

[edit]

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

File:La_Mauta_Piz_de_Sëura_Urtijëi.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The farmhouse La Mauta in Piz de Sëura, Urtijëi, Gröden. --Moroder 22:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry but I don't think that 432 megapixel files of farmhouses are any useful --Podzemnik 01:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, >400 MP are extraordinary, but for me, this is also extraordinary good quality. I suggest a downsampling to about 108 MP as a compromise --PantheraLeo1359531 10:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I think "too large file" shouldnt be reason for rejection. Good quality IMO.--Grtek 12:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don´t mind the size, but the outshining walls in the background should be dimmed and the little stitching error in the pipe from the roofgutter should be fixed. --Milseburg 14:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Podzemnik: I don't know that a high file size is a criterium for a QI qualification. Anyhow I fixed the stitching error and reduced size. Don't see a reason to dim the shining walls when they were so in reality --Moroder 18:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 04:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Berlin_Rollt,_Berlin_(IF4A0054).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Timekeeping official at Roller Derby, Berlin --MB-one 08:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, I think the pose of the official (with the arm right before his face) breaks this picture. Feel free to go to CR if you want another opinion on this. --Domob 18:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would like to hear more opinions. --MB-one 11:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Busy background, crop should be tighter. --Kallerna 07:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Domob.--Peulle 17:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 23:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Honey_icon_white_01.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Honey icon. By User:Mushki Brichta --Andrew J.Kurbiko 09:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support good quality --Grtek 11:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. To simple for QI. --Milseburg 12:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question why is the jar's bottom rounded? --MB-one 13:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Info So, i think its trying to copy the most popular shape, which is round-ish. --Andrei (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per milseburg --Smial 11:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Palauenc05 18:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 23:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Shofar_01.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Shofar icon. By User:Mushki Brichta --Andrew J.Kurbiko 09:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support good quality --Grtek 11:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI disagree. Too simple for QI. --Milseburg 12:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree. --Peulle 09:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is too simple IMO --PantheraLeo1359531 10:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per milseburg --Smial 11:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too simple. --Pandakekok9 12:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 23:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Springbok_(Antidorcas_marsupialis_hofmeyri)_suckling.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis hofmeyri) suckling --Charlesjsharp 16:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment The oof bushes seem oversharpened --MB-one 16:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support For a Features canditate I would agree with the oversharped bushes. But it is a good quality pic. --Alexander Leisser 09:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree per previous comment --MB-one 14:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Not nice bokeh, but the animals are well depicted, and nice lighting. --Smial 11:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice and quality good enough for me -- Spurzem 11:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Pandakekok9 12:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Jan_Hus_Statue,_Old_Town_Square.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jan Hus Statue on Old Town Square. Almost no people there during COVID-19 pandemics --Grtek 10:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 11:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The perspective correction needed. --Tournasol7 15:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now per Tournasol7 --Uoaei1 15:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Tournasol7 and Uoaei1: ✓ Done--Grtek 17:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    It's better, but the verticals are still not straight. The CAs you should to remove also. Not QI for now, sorry... Tournasol7 13:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 22:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Pandakekok9 12:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_Basking_posture_of_Borbo_cinnara_(Wallace,_1866)_–_Rice_Swift_WLB_DSC_027_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing Basking posture of Borbo cinnara (Wallace, 1866) – Rice Swift (by Sandipoutsider) --Atudu 07:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --Charlesjsharp 16:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support. Indeed no FP but QI as I think. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 20:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Body of insect is sharp which suggests the less-than-crisp antennae may be movement. IMO QI but the bit of orange on the right side is disturbing in a field of greens, yellows and browns. My eye goes right to it instead of the subject. I suggest tighter cropping. -- GRDN711 02:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@GRDN711: Since the author doesn't seem to see your suggestion, I cropped the image myself. Please check. Thanks, Pandakekok9 12:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Now that the orange bit is gone. Despite the crop though, I can't still fully support it due to antennae. I don't object to this being QI though. --Pandakekok9 12:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too low DOF. --Kallerna 14:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Using f13 it is very difficult (no impossible) to have better dof for a live subject --Cvmontuy 00:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per cropping of @Pandakekok9: --GRDN711 01:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Navajo_Sandstone.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Navajo Sandstone at the Moccasin Mountain Dinosaur Tracksite, Utah, USA. --The Cosmonaut 02:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Bgag 04:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose I think it's overprocessed. Heaps of JPG artifacts --Podzemnik 07:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Podzemnik. It looks very strange. -- Ikan Kekek 09:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 10:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. I don't see the lacks. -- Spurzem 10:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Again I don't understand a rework. First version is somewhat soft, but has natural appearing colours and is good enough to be printed to A4 or larger. The reworked version has sharpening artifacts everywhere, also has halo, and looks oversaturated. Why? In german we have the word "verschlimmbessert"... --Smial 15:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: reverted back to the original. I was experimenting with some new post-processing software; clearly, haven't quite mastered it yet, Podzemnik, Ikan Kekek, Peulle, Smial. --The Cosmonaut 18:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Much better, but I doubt it's sharp enough (I don't remember what I may have said before, but that's my reaction at the moment). -- Ikan Kekek 22:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support for first version. Though somewhat soft, I like composition, colours, and also the very nice lighting. --Smial 23:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Grtek 03:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial --Milseburg (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others and fuzzy Seven Pandas 20:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 23:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Tata_EVision,_GIMS_2018,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(1X7A1189).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tata EVision concept at Geneva International Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 10:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very unfortunate lighting. Look especially to the windscreen and the side window. I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 11:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Pandakekok9 11:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 23:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)