Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 13 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Geometrid_moth_(Leuculopsis_unifasciata).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Geometrid moth (Leuculopsis unifasciata), Panama --Charlesjsharp 12:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Right wing out of focus --Uoaei1 14:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support It's no excellent picture, but QI for me. --Manfred Kuzel 13:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support It is really difficult to get these little creatures completely sharp, so IMHO a QI. --Aristeas 15:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Unless this moth is unbelievably humongous, it's sharp enough for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 21:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 22:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Argynnis_paphia_auf_Centaurea_jacea_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Silver-washed fritillary (Argynnis paphia) on a brown knapweed (Centaurea jacea) --Uoaei1 06:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose wings not in focus. Charlesjsharp 12:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough for QI I think.--Ermell 07:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ermell.--Manfred Kuzel 13:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ermell. --Aristeas 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - The wingspan of this butterly is only 54–70 mm per w:Silver-washed fritillary, so I think this is sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 21:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 22:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Ancient_Roman_Mosaic_in_Utica,_Tunisia_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ancient Roman Mosaic in Utica, Tunisia - Cascade --Kritzolina 08:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry but there is barely anything in focus --Podzemnik 05:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main motif out of focus. --Smial 11:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 21:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 22:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Sesrien_Canyon_Dunes.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sand dunes behind the edge of Sesriem Canyon --Domob 17:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Insufficient quality. Not very sharp, sorry --Moroder 05:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
     Comment It may not be very sharp, but I think it is above the bar. --Domob 08:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Surprisingly high chroma noise regarding iso is set to 100. Also strong jpg compression artifacts. Irfanview reports "quality 80" (of max. 100), which is way too low. If possible, try to reprocess the image with jpg compression set to "best". --Smial 09:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Reprocessed the raw file - I reduced sharpening, which will hopefully reduce noise. Also set JPEG compression to 100 instead of 80. Is that better now? --Domob 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    •  Support Much better now. Softness in the far background may be due to aerial perspective or heat and is not disturbing. Oppose vote deleted. --Smial (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 22:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Tuning_World_Bodensee_2018,_Friedrichshafen_(OW1A0262).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Jaguar F-Type at Tuning World Bodensee 2018 --MB-one 17:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 13:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Ich denke aber, dass die Perspektive korrigiert werden muss. Bis dahin "o" von mir. -- Spurzem 16:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Spurzem: erledigt. --MB-one 21:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 Support Good now. -- Spurzem 15:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 04:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 22:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)