Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 29 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Deux_filets_flottants_de_pêche_au_port_de_pêche_de_Cotonou_au_Bénin.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Two floating fishing nets at the Cotonou fishing port in Benin --Adoscam 10:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 12:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The WB is completely off --Poco a poco 19:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree Seven Pandas 11:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ... and it also looks overprocessed. The bottom crop is not ideal either.--Peulle 12:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 20:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Bentley_Le_Mans_4,5_Litre_Special,_Bj._1935,_4398_cm³,_130_PS_(2007-07-22).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bentley Le Mans 4.5 litre special, built in 1935, at the vintage car rally "2000 km through Germany" 2007 in Montabaur -- Spurzem 17:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Small photo for 2020 standards, but good quality --Michielverbeek 18:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Small & unsharp. --Kallerna 05:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kallerna: Your unqualified grumb­ling is noticeable. What you see out of focus are the wheels that are spinning. And what is too small? The picture is cropped and yet it exceeds the minimum require­ments of the Commons.-- Spurzem 14:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Please do not take it personally, I was reviewing the photo. The photo is on the small side, it is overall unsharp considering the size, the light is too harsh (strong shadows & highlights) etc. Sorry to upset you, but it is just not good enough IMO. --Kallerna 17:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality per Michielverbeek and Spurzem's remarks. -- Ikan Kekek 08:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support As the car is moving I consider this as an action shot, and for that reason the image is by far "good enough". --Smial 12:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Is is big enough and sharp enough for QI and the lighting is also fine for QI Kallerna. Charlesjsharp 08:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Enough quality for me --PantheraLeo1359531 13:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 07:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Bärnfels_Ruine_Burg-20080413-RM-112132.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castle ruin in Bärnfels --Ermell 05:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 05:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The braches are distracting. --Kallerna 05:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Such branches are called foreground. I remember that foreground was wished if a photo like this should be good. -- Spurzem 16:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Just to be nitpicking: some small remains of CA, sharpness not really perfect. But good composition, natural colours, and printable to A4 size or bigger. "Good enough". --Smial 21:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version. Thanks for the review.--Ermell 21:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality, pace Kallerna's objection, which is valid. -- Ikan Kekek 05:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment The branches do make it a weak composition, but I don't know if that's a basis to oppose. many people would have cloned them out. If QI standards were higher (unfortunately they are not) then I would oppose. Charlesjsharp 08:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 07:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC))

File:Orange_triangle_marking_Wangapeka_Track,_Kahurangi_National_Park,_New_Zealand_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Orange triangle marking Wangapeka Track --Podzemnik 02:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 02:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If it is about the marking, the crop should be much tighter. Now most of the picture is unsharp background. --Kallerna 05:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Solid QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me. --MB-one 14:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support The crop is a question of taste. Good quality. -- Spurzem 16:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. --Smial 21:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the crop is poor, but still QI Kallerna. I often don't bother with cropping at QI as anyone using the image can crop all they want. FP is different. Charlesjsharp 08:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 07:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Trakai_Galve_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Galve (Lake), Trakai, Lithuania --Zairon 18:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality. --Isiwal 21:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. To much contrast, maybe oversaturated and not a QI composition. --JoachimKohler-HB 04:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per JoachimKohler-HB --Cvmontuy 18:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 07:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Sand_Steinbruch_Hermannsberg_I-20200418-RM-170345.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hermannsberg quarry near Sand am Main --Ermell 06:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion IMO a little underexposed, but good quality --Michielverbeek 07:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    Definitely underexposed. 5 images of the same quarry, please nominate only your best work. --Kallerna 05:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    Kallerna, if you would like to see only the best image of a location, please have a look to COM:VIC. --XRay 07:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for the info XRay, but I guess I had several VIs before you uploaded your first image here. Why nominate & promote several highly similar images? --Kallerna 17:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    The criteria is quality, not uniqueness. So IMO several views of the same object are acceptable. It may be difficult to separate, but uniqueness is a criteria at VI and FP. That's good - and enough. --XRay 06:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but this one is underexposed. --Kallerna 08:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ... and there are minor CAs at the branches. --XRay 10:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Sorry that was the undeveloped version. Thanks for the reviews.--Ermell 19:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Brightness and contrast should be improved. It could be done easily. And CAs? -- Spurzem 14:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)– O.K. now "Weak" removed. -- Spurzem 22:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Looks good enough to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 06:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Humle_på_Selje_(9).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bumblebee feeding on Goat willow.--Peulle 07:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DOF, only the back of the bee is seen. Crop should be tighter. Please nominate only your best work. --Kallerna 04:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I agree with Kallerna on this one. Not much is sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 10:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, while I can definitely concede the point about the DoF (it was a difficult shot, she kept moving around), I would like to add that I think Commons do need images of creatures from all angles, including the back.--Peulle 18:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I agree, but I don't see much of the back, either. -- Ikan Kekek 00:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Rear views can be high quality compositions, but not this one. Charlesjsharp 08:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 06:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Hopewell_Cape_Formation.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Conglomerate of the Hopewell Cape Formation outcropping at the Hopewell Rocks Provincial Park, New Brunswick, Canada. --The Cosmonaut 03:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perhaps too soft? Considering you were standing right in front of it --Podzemnik 03:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Podzemnik. --Kallerna 06:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a major sharpness issue. --King of Hearts 19:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Sharpness is enough --PantheraLeo1359531 13:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 06:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)