Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 05 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Medina2018.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination An Old man with barbe in the Old medina of sousseI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Nouha BenHafsia 16:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Med mhamdi 15:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks washed-out; supporter lacks eligibility to review. --Rodhullandemu 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Rod. Looks like a washed-out analog photo from the 70s. -- Ikan Kekek 07:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice snapshot composition, but heavy noise (how come @ ISO100???), some CA and last not least wrong focus: head unsharp. --Smial 10:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 15:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose insufficient quality. --Fischer.H 17:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per rod. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 23:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Fete_de_la_republique_&_l'ntree_du_mois_d'awessou.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination feux d'artifice lors de la fete de la republique et l'entree du celebre mois "awessou اوسّو"I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --H2arts 16:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Med mhamdi 15:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Verticals aren't vertical and supporter lacks eligibility to review. --Rodhullandemu 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise, hot pixels, tilt. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Great photo. But would want an English description. --GPSLeo 14:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Rodhullandemu.--Peulle 15:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Rod. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 23:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Entrée_principale_musée_national_de_Sousse.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Musée National de SousseI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Mohamed Taoufik Tekaya Sousse 16:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Med mhamdi 15:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Below the 2MB size threshold and Supporter lacks eligibility to review, unsharp. --Rodhullandemu 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Over 2 MP minimum size but nothing sharp here. --Basotxerri 08:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp; no existing category. --GPSLeo 14:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a QI by any means.--Peulle 15:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Billy69150 16:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Sousse2018.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination a man working in the medina of SousseI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Ncir Mouna 16:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Med mhamdi 15:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor composition; out of focus foreground clashes with subject and supporter lacks eligibility to review. --Rodhullandemu 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Black and white is mostly not wanted. --GPSLeo 14:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Rodhullandemu.--Peulle 15:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Billy69150 16:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Tunisa_Sidi_Bou_Saïd.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sidi Bou Saïd ; tunisiaI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Bechir b ftima 16:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Med mhamdi 15:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Below the size threshold of 2MB Shouldn't the waterline be horizontal? Ships don't sail uphill and supporter lacks eligibility to review. --Rodhullandemu 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Below minimum size of 2 MP. --Basotxerri 08:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too small -- Basile Morin 02:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Basotxerri. --Fischer.H 17:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 19:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Mühlhamer_Schleife.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 360° Panorama, Danube River near Osterhofen --SimonWaldherr 21:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Billy69150 10:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO, too much overexposure at the sky. --C messier 11:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --GPSLeo 14:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per messier. --GerifalteDelSabana 14:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Billy69150 15:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Mettenufer_Panorama.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 360° Panorama, Donau near Mettenufer --SimonWaldherr 21:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Billy69150 10:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO, too much overexposure at the sky. --C messier 11:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose stitching artifacts on the left. --MB-one 22:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Great resolution --GPSLeo 14:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for me no QI. --Fischer.H 17:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 19:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Spotted_dove_--_Spilopelia_chinensis_cropped_&_noise-processed.png[edit]

  • Nomination An adult spotted dove (Spilopelia chinensis). --GerifalteDelSabana 00:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. But the filename could be improved. --XRay 03:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@XRay: What do you suggest I rename the file to? GerifalteDelSabana 04:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The developing process must not be described in the filename. It's just a suggestion. --XRay 06:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not convinced because of the artifacts. --Tsungam 06:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Where are the artifacts? Do you mean the tiny imperfections in the bokeh background? Because the bird looks good to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There are minor artifacts. I found them too. But IMO it's still a "pro". --XRay 05:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterized, sharpening artifacts everywhere. --Smial 08:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    •  Question - Please explain what you're seeing, so that I can see it, too. -- Ikan Kekek 16:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
      •  Comment Zoom in to 100% and watch the sharpening artifacts at the feet, watch the speckels all over the background, watch the sharpening artifacts on most auf the feathers, where totally blurred areas can be seen side by side with oversharpened. Posterization also at the legs, no detail remaining. Posterization also in the darker parts of the body. Zooming to 200% view not necessary. --Smial 07:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't see these things until I zoom in to 300% of the size of my laptop screen. So is that really a strong reason to decline? -- Ikan Kekek 16:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial, oversharpened. --Basotxerri 18:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good photo, IMO this is the best photo of Spotted dove. Voltmetro 10:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • If this is the best photo of a spotted dove, then it can probably be a valued image. But from a technical POV it is flawed. --Tsungam 11:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose to many unsharp areas. --Fischer.H 16:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I too see the artefacts now.--Peulle 21:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial, et al. --MB-one (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The artefacts are not so good. --GPSLeo 14:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Declined   --Billy69150 16:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Ihasalu_poolsaare_tipp_aerofoto.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Uppermost point of Ihasalu peninsula. By User:Hiiumaamudeliklubi ... Kruusamägi 15:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The image has been downsized. --Peulle 15:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support The size is decent and the quality is ok IMO, especially for aerial photos. --Christian Ferrer 17:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Are we really going to have this argument again!? This is 2018, the camera can shoot 21 mpx and we get 5 - how is this OK? The guidelines even mention this specifically, that "Images should not be downsampled". I see no reason to downsize an image like this one - it's not like somebody's face is unflatteringly displayed.--Peulle 21:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'll look if I can get something done about that. Kruusamägi 11:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment That would be awesome, thanks. P.S.: Going on holiday tomorrow - renomination possible if improved.--Peulle 21:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support size and quality are ok. --Ralf Roletschek 10:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose per Peulle, however, could've been a good shot. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose insufficient quality. --Fischer.H 16:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per Christian Ferrer --MB-one 22:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe as valued image --GPSLeo 14:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Billy69150 16:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)