Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 31 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Yellowjack_2014_03_01_6686.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Male Yellowjack Notogomphus praetorius on the Mkomazi river, KwaZulu-Natal. --Alandmanson 13:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The wings are not sharp... Tournasol7 13:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems like QI to me, body and head sharp, wings are not (can't be?) the focus of the image at this angle.--Shankar Raman 13:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Must of the head and body is sharp this is QI IMO --Cvmontuy 12:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Without stacking is the overall sharpness not possible.--Ermell 19:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --PumpkinSky 13:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Aethriamanta brevipennis 3339.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aethriamanta brevipennis --Vengolis 02:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough for me and we already have another QI candidate of this insect taken at the same time which is very similar. QI guidelines say "Carefully select your best images to nominate". Charlesjsharp 11:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - It's a QI for me on the same basis that the one below that's a bit lighter and has a slightly different crop is a QI. I'm a little confused by your quotation from the guidelines, because we've previously discussed whether virtually identical photos could be nominated at QIC, and the decision was that they could and that each photo had to be judged individually, dissimilarly to how we do things at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek 05:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment While there is no rule against nominating almost identical photos, it is generally discouraged since most of the time it serves very little purpose to flood this section with whole series of photos that look almost the same. --W.carter 08:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Could you better describe the image, for example "Aethriamanta brevipennis in location, state or province, country". Geocoding would be welcome too. Tournasol7 21:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  CommentSorry! .--Vengolis 02:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Tournasol7 Geocoded.Thank you --Vengolis 02:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support Good quality for me, Tournasol7 21:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --PumpkinSky 13:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Monarch butterfly - male injured NBG LR.jpg[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Aethriamanta brevipennis 3336.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aethriamanta brevipennis --Vengolis 17:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not really QI. Charlesjsharp 22:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - The dragonfly is sharp enough for QI, in my opinion. I'd respect an argument that some of the other things in the picture are distracting, but I'm OK with them. -- Ikan Kekek 06:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Yeah this one looks OK to me.--Peulle 13:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I will support after a cut reducing by half the background area --Cvmontuy 12:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --PumpkinSky 13:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)