Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 03 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2020-01-10_Women's_Super_G_(2020_Winter_Youth_Olympics)_by_Sandro_Halank–805.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Amélie Klopfenstein, Women's Super G at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics in Lausanne --Sandro Halank 20:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose Too small, sorry. Is there any chance you could upload a larger version? --Nefronus 00:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support Above 2 MP and IMO good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 00:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image only very barely reaches the absolute lower limit for the image resolution required here on QIC. Since it is not an action photo, not a macro shot, not particularly difficult lighting conditions (except for the clearly overexposed background) and not a difficult photograph in the wild, it is clearly too small for me. Note: The camera used delivers 20 MPixels natively. --Smial 12:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose by Smial. Is this a downscaled photograph? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    It's not. It's a crop of a photo taken from a greater distance. It was simply not possible to get closer to the subject (podium) during the mascot ceremony. --Sandro Halank 18:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    Alright, so I remove my opposing vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk)
  •  Support --Commonists 16:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I do not understand why a camera location that is too far away or a focal length that is too short is tolerated in this case.At 300 dpi, the resolution is not quite enough for a postcard-sized print. But it doesn't matter, I think that with the next concert or wildlife photo, the community will then probably be relentless again because the photographer has reduced the size of his image a little in order to reduce the image noise at (often unavoidable) ISO3200. --Smial 19:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Black_Kite_Left_IITMandi_Salgi_Mar20_D72_14357.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Black kite (Milvus migrans) perching, IIT Mandi, Himachal --Tagooty 08:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Palauenc05 09:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tail is unfortunately obscored --Charlesjsharp 17:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment With a perching bird, it is common that the tail is partly/wholly obscured by the perch. The focus here is on the body and the head as the kite searches the ground for prey. --Tagooty 04:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The tail would be cropped even if not obscured. The kite is unlikely to be searching the ground for prey. It hunts on the wing. Charlesjsharp 09:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Point about prey well taken, my comment was speculative! This is a sequence of images in which the kite was looking in different directions, sometimes downwards. --Tagooty 02:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The tail does not bother me that much. For a quality image it seems fine. If it would have been a nomination for featured image, then most probably the tail factor would have played a major role. --Navneetsharmaiit 20:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Navneetsharmaiit. --GRDN711 16:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Black_hairstreak_(Satyrium_pruni).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Black hairstreak (Satyrium pruni) --Charlesjsharp 15:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. The legs are cut off by the blurred leaf. A higher pick-up point would have been necessary here. --Steindy 23:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support Insects are notoriously resistant to taking direction, and by the time a higher POV had been achieved, even if possible, it's unlikely the insect would still be there. Rodhullandemu 11:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support Per Rodhullandemu. --Nefronus 19:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question I may have missed it, but I don't think I saw information about the size of the butterfly in the en.wikipedia article. About how big are these critters? -- Ikan Kekek 21:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • wingspan ~37mm i.e. image shows 1/2 wingspan Ikan Kekek. This is a very rare butterfly in the UK. Revenge vote from Steindy because I oppose his footballers with missing hands etc. Charlesjsharp 09:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good information, Charles, right up to the point when you talk about a revenge vote. Please trust the consensus voting system of Commons and forget the personal comments. It makes it easier to review your images. --GRDN711 16:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Impressive, considering the size. You might note the size in your file description. -- Ikan Kekek 15:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality --Tagooty 02:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --GRDN711 16:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
}