Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 19 2024

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Greater_short-toed_lark_(Calandrella_brachydactyla_rubiginosa)_Gabes.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Greater short-toed lark (Calandrella brachydactyla rubiginosa) --Charlesjsharp 07:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, overprocessed. --El Golli Mohamed 14:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I guess your intention was to move to CR, right? --Poco a poco 19:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Didn't understand what do you mean by moving to CR?. --El Golli Mohamed 20:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    please note the repeated revenge votes (done the same on FPC) Charlesjsharp 20:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did realize it. Please, El Golli Mohamed, stop this behaviour. As you can see here the support for this image is overwhelming, don't waste the community ressources for personal motivations that have nothing to do with the quality of the image. Things like this often come back like a boomerang. Poco a poco 07:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Processing is adequate IMO. The twig partially overlays the subject but not too disturbing. --LexKurochkin 10:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Alexander-93 21:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent picture. Could be FP if the bird stood out more from the background, as is, not the ideal background but easily sufficient quality for QI. Cmao20 23:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
     Info I see it as an excellent example of natural camouflage, so it might be interesting as it is --LexKurochkin 07:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Outstanding picture. --Plozessor 02:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Bar-tailed_lark_(Ammomanes_cinctura)_Gabes_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bar-tailed lark (Ammomanes cinctura) --Charlesjsharp 14:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, overprocessed the head is not naturally sharp and the bird's chest has been softened too much. --El Golli Mohamed 14:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Again, then please, move to CR --Poco a poco 20:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    please note the repeated revenge votes (done the same on FPC) Charlesjsharp 20:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support
     Info Invalid vote without signature stricken. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It is true that the head is not quite sharp. However, this is a silly standard for QIC. To me a QI is an image that is sufficiently sharp, clear and well-composed to be used as a lead image in a Wikipedia article or on another Wikimedia project. It meets that standard easily. Also I think that it is important to note that El Golli Mohamed has not reviewed any nomination except to oppose every single one of Charles's images. Clear revenge voting. Cmao20 23:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture. --Plozessor 02:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_resting_of_Cheritra_freja_(Fabricius,_1793)_-_Common_Imperial_WLB_MG_3089.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing resting of Cheritra freja (Fabricius, 1793) - Common ImperialThis image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Butterfly.I, --SVKMBFLY 13:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a bit noisy --Nikride 18:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This should be good enough, but please do not forget the species category! Sending this to CR (please do not revert to "Nomination"!) --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me.--Ermell 19:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Cyclingworld_Cyclocross_Race_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170931).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cyclingworld Cyclocross Race 2024 in Meerbusch --MB-one 13:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Question Mostly blurred, except the orange cyclist. Might work if cropped more to that part? --Mike Peel 06:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Mike Peel. --Sebring12Hrs 12:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Cropped. --MB-one 20:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    • @MB-one: That is looking better. Any chance of a little more off the left, to remove the pole? Thanks. Mike Peel 19:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Cropped the pole out. --MB-one 07:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think this photo is such a bad example of panning. --Smial 16:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the composition with the blurred foreground and the sharp background. It shows some "action".--Alexander-93 21:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 22:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me now, thanks for iterating! Thanks. Mike Peel 10:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

File:RioGualeguaychu-mar2024.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Gualeguaychu River, Gualeguaychu, Argentina --Ezarate 14:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, sorry --Nikride 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I disagree Ezarate 18:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Why overprocessed? I see no disturbing artifacts. --Smial 16:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    • The trees look strange. And tilted --Nikride 19:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted, chromatic aberrations on power poles on the left --Jakubhal 06:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal.--Alexander-93 21:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose what Jakubhal said. --SHB2000 22:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)