Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 03 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Saint-Malo_les_remparts_de_la_cité_(16).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint-Malo les remparts.--Pierre André Leclercq 10:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Looks tilted ccw to me. Maybe perspective correction is also necessary. --Milseburg 10:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ DoneTilt and perspective corrections, thanks for your advice.--Pierre André Leclercq 14:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I think, the perspective is better now. But I am uncertain about composition and picture description. In the picture, the houses dominate more than the city wall. I do not want to decide alone. --Milseburg 09:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I brought more details in the description of this historic district in Saint Malo. The writer Chateaubriand was born in this building, and in the background stands the Town Hall classified historical monuments. Regards.--Pierre André Leclercq 14:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. The perspective still looks distorted, as if the houses would be tilting forward. In addition, the picture for me is too dark for 11 o'clock. -- Spurzem 14:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem, --Fischer.H 17:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective, tilt, underexposed and looks like a quite casual shot. --Basotxerri 17:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 00:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Poisonous_spider.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A spider is in attacking mood in National Botanical Garden of Bangladesh. By User:Apu Jaman --RockyMasum 08:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline * Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 23:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong posterization. Many over-exposed spots on head. No good DOF. --Johannes Robalotoff 14:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Before judging the quality, the page also needs work. The categorization and description need to have the correct species ID, and the file name is both inaccurate and unsuitable.--Peulle 12:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed and unsuitable category on the head. --Fischer.H 17:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

File:A nomad_putting_on_his_kurta.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A nomad putting on his kurta near Bahadurgarh, Patiala. He is sitting on a cot inside a mosquito net. --Satdeep Gill 05:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Inadequate description. --Johannes Robalotoff 05:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 06:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done fixed --Satdeep Gill 07:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I disagree. BTW single nominations should have a different description on QIC and be separated by an empty line --Moroder 09:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it okay now ? --Satdeep Gill 13:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    •  Comment No --Moroder 21:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
      •  Comment @Moroder: What exactly do I have to do ? --Satdeep Gill 09:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Asa I said and you didn’t do anything about it “single nominations should have a different description on QIC and be separated by an empty line”. You should explain in the file description why these pectures have been taken behind some sort of screen --Moroder 20:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. Description is still very vague, it's not really clear where the picture was taken and what it shows. --Podzemnik 02:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Podzemnik. --GerifalteDelSabana 03:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No QI for me, --Fischer.H 09:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Podzemnik: I have tried clarifying the description. Let me know if this works? --Satdeep Gill 05:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Satdeep Gill: Better, thank you.  Support --Podzemnik 02:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 Support as well now. --GerifalteDelSabana 02:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Now it works for me--Moroder 12:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 14:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --GerifalteDelSabana 22:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Reiher_Wiesenttal_7013415-PSD.jpg[edit]

  •  IMHO, File:Hain Graureiher 7264849.jpg would be the only bird shot from that day to pass QI. Frankly, I do not delight in opposing any nominations or making anyone feel down, but I just want to be honest, sorry. --GerifalteDelSabana 02:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. --Smial 09:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Seems of acceptable quality to me, considering that it's flying, not still. -- Ikan Kekek 10:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We recently declined another flying bird image with better detail level than this.--Peulle 10:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per Peulle and Smial too. --GerifalteDelSabana 11:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wings and feet too dark, no detail visible there. Sharpening artifacts and posterization as mentioned already above. --Johannes Robalotoff 12:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened. --Basotxerri 20:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ermell: Looks slightly better, but the wings are still too dark. Still some posterization at the head. --GerifalteDelSabana 22:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @GerifalteDelSabana: The underside cannot be brighter when the sun shines through the feathers from above left, unless you use a flash ;-) Thank you for your efforts.--Ermell 06:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
* Comment imho, this image is just too far from QI standards. Why not nominate File:Hain Graureiher 7264849.jpg? That one is much sharper and a definite QI. I quite like it. :) Oh, it's already QI... Silly me... --GerifalteDelSabana 22:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle --Fischer.H 09:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 14:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)