Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 17 2024

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Volkswagen_Tiguan_III_IMG_8394.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Volkswagen Tiguan III in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 08:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --Tobias ToMar Maier 22:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me, let's discuss. --Mike Peel 13:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see anything wrong with this picture. --Plozessor 05:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. The upper part of the car seems a bit too bright, and the gray, nearly non-transparent windows are unsightly. I would not have presented this photo for recognition as a quality image. -- Spurzem 10:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. Also low DOF. --Smial 12:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Convento_de_los_Jacobinos,_Toulouse,_Francia,_2023-01-07,_DD_28.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Convento de los Jacobinos, Toulouse, Francia, 2023-01-07 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 17:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose CA was so strong that even after removing it there are strong halos and burnt sky --Nikride 19:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
    Bullshit. Revenge botvote using the same criticism in the picture than the one I reviewed. If you don't accept criticisms here, please, refrain from asking for feedback to your images in this page. --Poco a poco 20:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Revenge bot - lol! Can bots take photos? No revenge. Do you just think that only you have the right to find fault with other photos, but not with yours? --Nikride 10:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • You know I was talking about a revenge vote, I corrected it. Look, I have been half a life contributing in this page, I'm approaching 20,000 QIs and my pictures are being declined from time to time. I have no problem with that as long as it's fair. You, like I have been doing, have to learn to come along with declines and criticisms and mine is fair. Just ask for a third opinion. Did you realize that I promoted a bunch of your pictures, you didn't complain then. Most of your pictures are borderline, you will not get better if you believe that declines and criticism are personal attacks. You should rather take it as a stimulus to get better instead of wasting your time and the time others. I really have nothing else to add here. Poco a poco 11:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I promoted a bunch of your pictures too --Nikride 10:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Do I understand correctly that photos of newcomers are checked more carefully than those who have been here for many years or are admins? --Nikride 15:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any real problem even in full resolution. Without some thorough pixel-peeping the picture has good quality --Jakubhal 10:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can't see any CA, but I don't like the strong distortion resulting from 'fixing verticals' in a picture taken from short distance.
  •  Support QI for me. Yann 13:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 13:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)