Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 20 2024

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Gualeguaychu-Costanera-mar2024-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of waterfront of Gualeguaychu, Argentina --Ezarate 19:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support OK imo. --ArildV 12:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose CA on trees and lamp --Nikride 19:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp enough to me. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

File:RioGualeguaychu-Clubpescadores.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Club de pescadores de Gualeguaychú, Argentina --Ezarate 19:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    cw tilt --ArildV 12:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    done, thanks!!! --Ezarate 17:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --ArildV 12:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose lacks sharpness and noisy sky --Nikride 19:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 11:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Common_shelduck_(Tadorna_tadorna)_female_in_flight_Sfax.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Common shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) female --Charlesjsharp 07:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Peulle 08:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, The white is overexposed on the back of the bird. --El Golli Mohamed 14:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
     Info Sending this to CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    please note the repeated revenge votes (done the same on FPC) --Charlesjsharp 20:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
     Support IMO good enough for QI. --XRay 07:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Not FP because the bird is facing away from the camera. But easily QI and a great capture. Cmao20 13:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Cmao20 --Plozessor 04:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Desert_wheatear_(Oenanthe_deserti_homochroa)_female_Gabes.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Desert wheatear (Oenanthe deserti homochroa) female --Charlesjsharp 07:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Terragio67 08:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, overprocessed and the head is not really in focus. --El Golli Mohamed 14:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
     Info Sending this to CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    please note the repeated revenge votes (done the same on FPC) --Charlesjsharp 20:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree that the head looks rather blurry. In addition, the number of pixels is really low, just above the absolute limit. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Would be fine as the infobox image for a Wikipedia article therefore fine for QI to me. Bird is sharp (perhaps a tiny bit of blur on the head), and stands out well from the background. Cmao20 13:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz 06:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Crested_lark_(Galerida_cristata_carthaginis)_Gabes.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Crested lark (Galerida cristata carthaginis) --Charlesjsharp 07:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Terragio67 08:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, overprocessed look at the egdes of the bird. --El Golli Mohamed 14:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
     Info Sending this to CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    please note the repeated revenge votes (done the same on FPC) --Charlesjsharp 20:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO this is good enough for QI. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Clear QI.Cmao20 13:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Really can't understand the opposing vote. --Plozessor 04:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Trafalgar_Square_2011_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The National Gallery in London. --Perituss 11:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not sharp at all, perspective isn't good, CAs everywhere. Not a QI. --Sebring12Hrs 13:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.# --MB-one 13:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective issues --Milseburg 13:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    Perspective was improved, is it better now? Thanks. --Perituss (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Tsitsikamma_National_Park_(ZA),_Suspension_Bridge_--_2024_--_2063.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Suspension Bridge, Tsitsikamma National Park, Eastern Cape, South Africa --XRay 03:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing is really in focus. Sorry. --Ermell 21:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell--Alexander-93 21:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of DOF, a significant part of the picture is extremely blurred. --Plozessor 02:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for an A4-size print. You can't get more DOF in such a view without focus stacking. f/13 is already borderline because of diffraction, f/22 would look blurred everywhere, regarding the high resolution. --Smial 12:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

File:20210715_Ναός_Αγίας_Παρασκευής,_Απείρανθος_7413.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ναός Αγίας Παρασκευής, Απείρανθος (by C messier) --Sebring12Hrs 16:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose chromatic aberration on trees --Ezarate 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --The Cosmonaut 00:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Unable to spot CA on trees, good picture. --Plozessor 05:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor --Jakubhal 06:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I put a note over the CA Ezarate 18:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Indeed there are few purple pixels, so you're not wrong saying that there is CA, but IMO it's not enough to deny QI status.
  •  Support cant note any CA. --PetarM 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Panterpe_insignis_in_Costa_Rica_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fiery-throated hummingbird (Panterpe insignis), Costa Rica --Bgag 00:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 00:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose quite blurred --Charlesjsharp 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --Plozessor 05:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose for now.  Neutral What is all that white powder on the bird and the white lines in the background? This was taken at 1/1000 second. If these lines are real, they must have fallen very quickly. Or are these some kind of artifacts from oversharpening? In addition, there appear to be quite a lot of dust spots, e.g. in the background and on the brown, blurry parts of the wing. Otherwise, this looks a bit borderline for QI because of the blurry parts, but still ok for me. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info It was raining. --Bgag 10:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. I changed my vote to neutral. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 22:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 19:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Makalali_Game_Reserve_(ZA),_Eule_--_2024_--_1305.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Owl at night in Makalali Game Reserve (Greater Makalali Private Game Reserve), Maruleng, Limpopo, South Africa --XRay 02:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose colours need attention --Charlesjsharp 08:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you. WB changed, the bird is more white now. --XRay 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 22:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange color bandings at the birds feet.--Ermell 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)