Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 22 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:To_Do.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Microsoft To Do Icon --17jiangz1 11:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too simple for me. Was this work really made by you or by Microsoft? --PantheraLeo1359531 11:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too simple for QI --Poco a poco 11:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question Did you vectorize it from a raster image? If so, it would qualify and be good enough for me. --MB-one 16:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Milseburg 18:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 23:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination A house crow (Corvus splendens) holding food between its maxillary rostrum and mandibular rostrum, Kuala Lumpur. --GerifalteDelSabana 08:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 10:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think that AI upscaling of shots like this is any good. I see motion blur or some kind of a line on the beak even at 1,280 × 536 pixels --Podzemnik 02:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Podzemnik and my remarks at COM:Photography critiques. -- Ikan Kekek 08:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ugly pixel artefacts everywhere. Please give us the original photo without any artificial upscaling. --Aristeas 13:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 23:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Velp,_Onze_Lieve_Vrouw_Visitatiekerk_RM42147_IMG_3795_2020-03-31_09.09.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Velp Gld-NL, church: Onze Lieve Vrouw Visitatiekerk --Michielverbeek 07:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good enough for QI --Milseburg 10:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Problematic light: partial overexposure. Little noisy, mediocre sharpness. IMO not good enough. --Kallerna 11:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC) :
  •  Comment The shadows were very strong and it was quiet hard to correct the perspective so I can only hope that it is good enough for QI --Michielverbeek 18:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Only the street is in shadow. IMO good enough for QI. --XRay 09:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   -- Seven Pandas 23:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Protective_masks_vending_machine_in_Karviná_(April_2020)_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Protective masks vending machine during the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020 at the Kaufland store in Karviná, Karviná District, Moravian-Silesian Region, Czechia --T.Bednarz 23:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Janbery 15:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distracting reflections. Especially the reflection of the objective is distracting. --Kallerna 11:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Useful photo, but I have to agree with Kallerna. The reflections are particularly distracting on the left side. -- Ikan Kekek 08:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose+1.--Peulle 08:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do not understand and do not see what should be shown in the picture according to the description. -- Spurzem 12:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It's supposed to show a vending machine that provides protective masks to customers (it was installed due to the obligation to wear them here in Czechia). --T.Bednarz 13:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 23:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Hüthum,_die_katholische_Kirche_Sankt_Georg_Dm28_IMG_3617_2020-03-24_12.53.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hüthum-NRW, church: the catholic chirch Kirche Sankt Georg --Michielverbeek 20:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 04:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Sorry, composition failed in my eyes. Although the garages are authentic, they spoil the image of the church. From this perspective with the garages, there is no composition that achieves the QI level. --Milseburg 09:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I also don't like those garages on the photo, but it is impossible to make a good photo from this church without those garages --Michielverbeek 18:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I usually don't oppose on composition at QIC, but I agree with Milseburg. Maybe a useful photo but not a QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:10, 18 April 2020
  •  Neutral Very bad composition und distorted tower -- Spurzem 14:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with the others. While no fault of the photographer's, that garage really spoil the image.--Peulle 08:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Haus_"Morgensonne"_in_Steckborn.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Residential house "Morgensonne" (Morning sun) in Steckborn, Switzerland --JoachimKohler-HB 19:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Milseburg 19:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose top crop --Charlesjsharp 08:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support perfect photo, good crop. --Tuxyso 20:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't see anything wrong with the top crop - are you sure you meant this image, Charles, and not one of the others? I've seen lots of images with tighter crops than this one get promoted. That said, I do have an issue with the license plate on that car on the left. When we edit plates here, we tend to look for more elegant solutions than this one - this just looks like a big smudge across the numbers.--Peulle 12:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, hundreds of images that are far too tightly cropped are promoted on QI. Standards are low. But I think I'm entitled to vote against poor composition. Charlesjsharp 08:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I agree with Peulle. Good photo; just improve the license plate and then I'd support it. -- Ikan Kekek 03:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Info As far as I know, there is no obligation in Germany to make license plates unrecognizable, since the normal viewer cannot extract the holder's personal data from them. --Milseburg 09:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I uploadet a new version --JoachimKohler-HB 15:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --Peulle 10:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support There's absolutely nothing wrong with the crop IMHO. --MB-one 19:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good photo. -- Ikan Kekek 09:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Completely fine and OK. --Aristeas 14:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 23:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Bahnhof-Mettmann-Stadtwald-2019.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mettmann Stadtwald station with historic railway building --Tuxyso 18:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 19:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose top crop --Charlesjsharp 08:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that is not quality defect. Other opinions? --Tuxyso 13:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment The top crop is no problem for me; the building is clearly the main subject. I'd check the perspective, though - both sides seem to be leaning out a bit.--Peulle 12:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Close crop on top but acceptable. -- Ikan Kekek 04:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've reworked on the photo (perspective, crop), please take another look, Ikan Kekek, Charlesjsharp, JoachimKohler-HB and Peulle.Thanks! --Tuxyso 08:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Better composition. -- Ikan Kekek 10:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support now.--Peulle 14:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 07:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

File:St._Martins_Sea_Caves.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination St. Martins Sea Caves, New Brunswick, Canada. --The Cosmonaut 03:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO too dark too --Podzemnik 03:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry. I agree with Podzemnik. --Milseburg 06:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC) No reason to oppose for me any more. But the trees on the left are looking tilted. Maybe there is a distotion to be fixed. --Milseburg 09:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I'm OK with a cave being dark. However, the highlights are glary. Perhaps you could reprocess this photo somewhat? -- Ikan Kekek 11:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done: redeveloped, Podzemnik, Milseburg, Ikan Kekek --The Cosmonaut 12:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Seems like it was a hazy day. I think some of you will still oppose on the basis that the conditions were poor for photography, but I find it acceptable. -- Ikan Kekek 02:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Selecting a suitable day for photography is part of the job. --Kallerna 05:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kallerna.--Ermell 21:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 23:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)