Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 05 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Phyllomedusa_distincta_no_Parque_Estadual_por_Carlos_Botelho_Giordano_Rossi_(06).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wiki Loves Earth 2020. By User:Gionorossi --Rodrigo.Argenton 20:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 03:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • needs better description --Charlesjsharp 09:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Charlesjsharp: it's a wiki you can edit, same energy to type this massage and have a caption with the name of the animal. --Rodrigo.Argenton 12:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo, and though I don't speak Portuguese, I can understand the description perfectly with the aid of my knowledge of Italian and French, and I don't see how there's any problem with it. -- Ikan Kekek 14:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Estação_Ecológica_de_Santa_Bárbara_Giordano_Rossi_(09).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wiki Loves Earth 2020. By User:Gionorossi --Rodrigo.Argenton 15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose tight crop --Charlesjsharp 19:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the quality is fine. --Johannes Maximilian 21:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support A little more depth of field would have been nice, but considering the high resolution it is good enough. Excellent lighting. --Smial 07:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 10:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support The depth of field could be greater, but the picture is very nice nonetheless. --Johannes Maximilian 20:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per others: good view of the left side of the animal's face. -- Ikan Kekek 06:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Static_display,_EBACE_2018,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(BL7C0541).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Boeing Business Jet at EBACE 2018, Geneva --MB-one 14:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficient quality. Composition, sorry --Moroder 06:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    Could you expand on that please? What exactly about the composition do you mean? --MB-one 00:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I’m glad you put it for discussion, it’s a very subjective matter: I don’t like the fence, the fence cutting the machine, the cut wing and the really messy background on the right --Moroder 04:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Moroder --Cvmontuy 15:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Amanita_muscaria_2018_G11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fly agaric -- George Chernilevsky 14:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 15:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It would have been nice if the lighting was distributed, and maybe dry twigs cleaned from the subject. --Navinsingh133 18:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Really solid QI. Navinsingh133, you're making an argument that would be relevant to an FPC nomination. The compositional issues you cite might well prevent this from passing there, but they are nowhere near obvious, inarguable and serious enough to justify declining this high-quality a photo at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek 00:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsuitable, frontal lighting with very hard shadows. --Smial 09:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I’m not so severe with the lightning :-) --Moroder 05:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)~

File:4X-ELA_TLV_140414.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 4X-ELA (aircraft). By User:Poliocretes --Andrew J.Kurbiko 05:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline Unfortunately too small -Michielverbeek 06:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
     Support The image seems to be cropped but the quality is good for me. I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 15:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
     Comment Yes, its a good picture, can't you provide a version with a higher resolution? --Palauenc05 17:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose Oppose for now (much less than 2 megapixels) --Robert Flogaus-Faust 06:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose below hard 2 Mpixel limit. --Smial 09:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per se ineligible per others, not debatable. -- Ikan Kekek 10:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Even if it's under 2 Mega pixels (1,7 here), This image is very sharp, there no defaults, it's very clean ! QI for me. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose below 2 MP limit.--Peulle 09:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dura lex sed lex --Moroder 08:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose good recording, but the minimum limit of 2 Mp is just that and you should stick to it. --Fischer.H 17:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ineligible for QI due to low resolution. --MB-one 13:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 22:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Polyommatus_icarus_-_Common_blue_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A female common blue (Polyommatus icarus) --Zcebeci 12:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Charlesjsharp 13:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful picture, although depth of field is too shallow, blurred subject. --Navinsingh133 20:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Solid for a QI of a butterfly. -- Ikan Kekek 09:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  SupportSeven Pandas 01:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Navinsingh133. -- Smial 10:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI, by all means. --Palauenc05 08:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Minimum limit of 2 Mp not reached. --Fischer.H 17:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not really, have another look. --Palauenc05 17:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Fischer.H, try calculating that again. -- Ikan Kekek 18:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Seagull_in_Rostock_Harbour_I.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Immature herring gull in the city harbour of Rostock, Germany.--Okruz 19:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Quality is OK but the structure in the bacground is so distracting that I think this is not QI composition. Seagulls are relatively easy to photograph, if you did one or two steps to the left, you could get rid of the structure --Podzemnik 21:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for the feedback. Just out of curiosity: is it the overlap that is bothering you or the structure being there at all? --Okruz 11:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
     Support I think it is okay given the criteria. --Navinsingh133 19:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose per Podzemnik. I would like to see a better focus on the bird alone. --GRDN711 00:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The structure belongs to the (nowadays natural) habitat of seagulls. The distance between bird and structure should have been somewhat bigger, but that's a minor composition issue. --Smial 07:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Podzemnik. --Fischer.H 17:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)