Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 30 2022

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Black_kite_(Milvus_migrans_migrans)_Huelva.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Black kite (Milvus migrans migrans) --Charlesjsharp 22:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To small, sorry. --Lodewicus de Honsvels 21:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Resolution OK for this kind of photograph. --XRay 05:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Really rather low resolution. Processing artifacts. --Smial 23:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 14:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC))

File:Peugeot_e-Expert_1X7A0428.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Peugeot e-Expert in Stuttgart.--Alexander-93 15:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 15:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To many reflections on the car. Vehicle registration plate has to be blinded for currently used vehicles? --Lodewicus de Honsvels 21:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Reflections are typical and can't be avoided. --XRay 07:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Over time we have become quite undemanding when it comes to QI of car photos. The background of this image is not the best too if not to say very bad. -- Spurzem 13:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. Good sharpness is important, but it is not sufficient as the only basis for evaluation. --Smial 10:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 14:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC))

File:Ferrari_Roma_1X7A0308.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Ferrari Roma in Böblingen.--Alexander-93 19:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Velvet 07:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I thought this was noisy, but it looks like the car's just a bit dirty! --Mike Peel 07:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To many reflections on the car and in backround. Vehicle registration plate has to be blinded for currently used vehicels? --Lodewicus de Honsvels 21:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK and good for QI. --XRay 06:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Week  Oppose The picture is too pale. Look at the yellow of the Ferrari logo. But when it comes to photos of cars - as I said - we seem to have become very undemanding. -- Spurzem 13:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose A dirty car does not make a QI unless the dirt is part of the composition, IMO. --Tagooty 02:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Again: No problem with dirt. The photo is a correct depiction of the subject in its state. It does not have to look like an advertising brochure ---- Jakubhal 04:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jakubhal: But the Ferrari logo should be reproduced in the correct color, shouldn't it? I can only wonder what is meanwhile considered a quality image for the cars. -- Spurzem 12:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 11:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 14:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC))

File:SC_Wiener_Neustadt_vs._SK_Austria_Klagenfurt_2015-10-20_(140).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Philipp Hütter, player of SC Wiener Neustadt. --Steindy 14:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Photo name should be amended, as it shows only the player. --Lodewicus de Honsvels 21:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Question Why is this in CR?--Peulle 12:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 06:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC))

File:Forst_an_der_Weinstraße_Elsterweg_001_2022_03_24.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Weeping grapevine (Vitis vinifera) in the Palatinate Forest Nature Park
    --F. Riedelio 10:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Question Can you reduce the noise? --Steindy 17:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 12:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 10:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If I zoom in the photo gets blurry in total, not ok for promotion. --Lodewicus de Honsvels 21:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 05:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 14:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)