Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 14 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Close_wing_position_of_Spindasis_vulcanus_(Fabricius,_1775)_–_Common_Silverline_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing position of Spindasis vulcanus (Fabricius, 1775) – Common Silverline (by Subhendukhan) --Atudu 15:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Very good, but per se ineligible because of the water mark on the lower right. -- Ikan Kekek 08:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, there's a watermark. Good catch, Ikan. --Peulle 09:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Valley_of_Kawarau_River_11.jpg[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 12:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Close_wing_position_of_Castalius_rosimon_Fabricius,_1775_–_Common_Pierrot_kamalpur.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing position of Castalius rosimon Fabricius, 1775 – Common Pierrot (by Subhendukhan) --Atudu 15:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 18:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed. Charlesjsharp 21:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Heavy overprocessing, not even close to QI standards. @Piotr Bart, please take a look at the judging guidelines to avoid promoting such obviously flawed images.--Peulle 06:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Posterized; that looks like white latex paint on the butterfly. -- Ikan Kekek 08:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 12:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Luntur_harimau.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2017. By User:Prastyoeko --Aldnonymous 15:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Looks good to me --Tulsi Bhagat 17:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too noisy. Sorry. --Ermell 18:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noise. Charlesjsharp 21:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 06:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Rather noisy, but obvisiously very difficult lighting situation. As composition, colours, and sharpness are good to very good I'd like to support this image. Great shot despite the noise, and it has full resolution. QI rules say: Images should be declined if preventable noise exists, I believe in this case the noise is not preventable. --Smial 09:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not supporting or opposing, but aren't there programs you can download to at least improve images? Alex of Canada 00:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
There are some rather sophisticated denoising tools like NeatImage, but every attempt leads to some sort of compromise. And those tools work best on uncompressed images without JPEG artifacts. --Smial 17:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 12:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Downtown_Anchorage_ENBLA11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Strada W 5th Ave. By User:Enrico Blasutto --Piotr Bart 17:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Eatcha 20:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction not done, overexposed sky, bad bottom crop (see the truck) --C messier 08:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think perspective correction can be run at this distance, but the composition is not ideal.--Peulle 06:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice view, but too many flaws: The facade and the reflections in the windows are not really sharp, while it is possible, to discover dead flies on the windscreen of the lorry. So probably wrong focus set. Sky has clipping colour channels. Noise soewhat on the high side for a daylight shot. The perspective resp. the verticals cannot reasonable be corrected from this distance, but the image also leans to the right. A symmetrical facade should be depicted somehow symmetrically, so too tight crop on the left side. A somewhat different camera location could possibly also have centered the reflection of the old building. While parts of the flaws could be improved, they alltogether can not. --Smial 15:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Vihorlatské_vrchy_-_Zemplínska_šírava_001.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Vihorlatské vrchy and Zemplínska šírava
  • Promotion --Milan Bališin 18:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 01:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, lack of detail IMO, lets discuss --Cvmontuy 15:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Piotr Bart 14:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 11:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Arun_Sharma_(Archaeologist).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Archaeologist Arun Sharma from Chhattisgarh India in a conference --Suyash.dwivedi 16:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry but the face is not in focus. The focus is on his neck. --Podzemnik 01:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 19:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think Podzemnik is right.--Peulle 06:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose by Podzemnik. --PtrQs 22:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 11:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Amalienburg,_Hofburg,_Vienna,_2019.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Amalienburg in Hofburg, Vienna. --Bep 23:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark! -- Herbert Ortner 09:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed --C messier 08:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --Piotr Bart 16:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • If you oppose, please give a reason for the review. It will be helpful for the photographer. --XRay 04:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed, I agree.--Peulle 08:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Way too dark for 13:21. -- Ikan Kekek 09:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed, lacking perspective correction, sharpening halos Poco a poco 16:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --Poco a poco 16:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Schönbrunn_Palace,_Wien,_2019.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Schönbrunn Palace in Wien. --Bep 23:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 00:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark! -- Herbert Ortner 09:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --Piotr Bart 16:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Please respect our rules: When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision. At a more detailed explanation at the comment of your decision, please. Thank you. --XRay 07:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree that this one is too dark; seems underexposed. Maybe fixable but as it is, not a QI yet.--Peulle 08:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Too dark for 12:29 and in places, too unsharp. -- Ikan Kekek 09:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed, noisy, dust spot, Poco a poco 16:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Poco a poco 16:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Castelo_de_San_Anton.001_-_A_Coruña.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castle of San Antón, A Coruña (Spain). --Drow male 16:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Is the overexposure at the walls fixable? --C messier 13:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done within a week. --XRay 07:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 19:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per xray. Also not really sharp. --Smial 15:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial.--Peulle 08:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   ----Seven Pandas 11:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Lion_statue_at_Victoria_Memorial,_Kolkata_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lion statue at Victoria Memorial, Kolkata --Eatcha 15:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 16:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Shadows too dark, disturbing person in the front, disturbing leafs at the left, perspective correction necessary. --XRay 16:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ DoneI fixed these issues --Eatcha 17:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • IMO still perspective issues. --XRay 05:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it okay now ? -- Eatcha 14:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK now. Thank you. --XRay 07:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it's ok --Armenak Margarian 19:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 09:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok Poco a poco 16:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Poco2 16:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Airman_sculpture_on_the_flight_deck_of_the_USS_Midway.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Airman sculpture on the flight deck of the USS Midway, USS Midway Museum, San Diego, California --Frank Schulenburg 05:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI disagree, first it needs to be properly categorized. --MB-one 07:31, 8 April 2019
  •  Support Very good image -- Spurzem 09:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
  •  Support good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 06:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment To be clear, I'm not debating the photographic quality. But for a QI it needs to be properly categorized, which it isn't at the moment. --MB-one 09:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   ----Seven Pandas 11:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Casa.001_-_Boiro.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination A house in Boiro, province of A Coruña, Galicia, Spain. --Drow male 04:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. It's tilted CW and unsharp. --XRay 06:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 19:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The CW tilt may be correctable, but not the lack of sharpness and plenty of color noise. --PtrQs 22:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   ----Seven Pandas 11:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)