Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 16 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Henri_IV_par_G_Dupré_C_des_M.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Français : Médaille à l'effigie d'Henri IV en argent doré dite "L'Hercule gaulois" - Diamètre 68 mm - Revers : Hercule - VINCES · ROBVR · ORBIS - --Siren-Com 22:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not enough sharp, and artifacts --Ezarate 00:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree! Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - At 68 mm in diameter, it's sharp enough! -- Ikan Kekek 06:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose Not even close. It's full of artefacts and the resolution is not very high either.--Peulle 07:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Peulle: Criticizing is very easy, making it better much harder. -- Spurzem 09:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to be rude, but to me, this image is a clear case of suffering from artefacts. If you look under "JPEG compression" in the Guidelines, there is an extreme case used as example. The image of this coin has lost most of its detail due to the artefacts. Additionally, you can see the jagged edges along the border (e.g. top left side) from when the background was removed. Simply put, a coin shouldn't look like this. It should look like this.--Peulle 08:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ezarate --Cvmontuy 09:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hallo Ezarate and Cvmontuy, would you please explain to me what you mean exactly here with the general term Artifacts? -- Spurzem 10:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Some borders shows pixalization and is grainy in general--Cvmontuy 23:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sharpness of the picture would still be acceptable with a little good will, but the photo has blatant noise, and is full of noise reduction artifacts. --Smial 11:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 18:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Meridian_Gate,_Hue_(I).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Meridian Gate (Citadel of Huế), Vietnam. --Supanut Arunoprayote 18:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support
    Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 05:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Partially overexposed sky. --C messier 14:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
     Support - Maybe just slightly overexposed, but seems acceptable to me. Supanut, you could dial back the brightness of the brightest highlights just a little bit. -- Ikan Kekek 20:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
     Neutral for now. If it is possible to recover the brightest highlights (see Ikan’s suggestion), QI for me. --Aristeas 07:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 21:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:2010_torch_cauldron.jpg[edit]

  • I disagree. He is a commoner. --Piotr Bart 08:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment A bit of advice for @Tabercil: it is quite likely that a lot of your images will be erroneously declined at QIC if you import them via the bot like this, as Flickr images are not eligible for QI (unless, as in this case, the photographer of the Flickr image also has a Commons account. Recommendation: upload the images directly to Commons, making identification easier. :) --Peulle 09:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tabercil doesn't seem to have any connection to Commons --MB-one 09:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very difficult motive. But the flame is too poor for a quality image. -- Spurzem 16:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 18:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Cataratas_Victoria,_Zambia-Zimbabue,_2018-07-27,_DD_44.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Victoria Falls, Zambia-Zimbabwe --Poco a poco 10:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion * Oppose Sorry but I think that light on the left ruins it. --Peulle 17:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand a straigt decline in cases like this. ✓ New version uploaded, better now? Poco a poco 08:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No reaction. Please, let me move it to CR before the bot wipes it out --Poco a poco 09:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better now --Llez 05:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I still think the light is too harsh. Unfixable. Hence my decline.--Peulle 15:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality, and of course it's exciting, too. -- Ikan Kekek 00:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --Aristeas 09:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 21:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 21:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination ADAC Rettungshubschrauber. --Fischer.H 09:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Sky needs denoising --MB-one 10:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • {{s}} Noise is absolutely within normal expectations, not visible at A4 or letter size. --Smial 10:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Fischer.H 13:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)**
    •  Comment Vote removed. Now it looks blurred. Compare the rivets near the big "C" of "ADAC", they are gone. I cannot support destructive noise reduction. The first version was "good enough" despite some noise. --Smial 16:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      •  Comment - Yes, the first version is better. -- Ikan Kekek 11:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
        •  Comment The original image file is up to date again.--Fischer.H 16:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - In some ways, he original is still the best, but this is an acceptable compromise. -- Ikan Kekek 02:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok, again pro for this version per Ikan. --Smial (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan.--Vulphere 04:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 18:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Cassius_blue_(Leptotes_cassius_cassidula).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cassius blue (Leptotes cassius cassidula), Panama --Charlesjsharp 08:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support I'd love clearer petals, but definitely a quality image of the butterfly. -- Ikan Kekek 08:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Blurred, many details are lost. I regret. Btw, the composition is really nice, i like it --George Chernilevsky 14:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --Manfred Kuzel 03:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per George. --Palauenc05 22:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Visible noise. Lack of details. Stoxastikos 18:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 18:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Hohe_Rannach_07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Autumn at Hohe Rannach, Styria --Clemens Stockner 18:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Vignetting is too strong in my eyes. --Milseburg 22:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Milseburg --Dirtsc 20:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 04:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support It's not an excellent photo, composition is not really intersting. however quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 06:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 21:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC))