Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 08 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Aporia_crataegi_couple.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Couple de Aporia crataegi posant sur une marguerite --MirandaAdramin 15:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose It's a very nice image, but the insect are in the foreground and unfortunately 3 wings and 2 antennae are out of the focus... Tournasol7 15:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good size, cute IMO--Lmbuga 22:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  CommentTournasol, not background, and butterflies are in focus. f/16--Lmbuga 22:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - To me, this is very good - excellent composition, and the focus is on the two butterflies meeting, so it's important that their heads be in focus, but it's OK that their wings are not all in focus. -- Ikan Kekek 02:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I see the focus issue, but per Ikan Kekek.--Peulle 12:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Of course the wings are out of focus, but the heads are excellent. Charlesjsharp 21:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 16:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Pink_sunrise_in_Langtang.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Himalayas, Nepal - Langtang national park, view from Laurebina (3920m). (By Q-lieb-in) --Biplab Anand 06:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. A lot of processing I guess, but I like it --Martin Falbisoner 07:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Severe posterization in cloud. -- Ikan Kekek 08:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks nice, but a chef would call this "over-cooked".--Peulle 12:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 16:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Tappan Zee bridges old and new Spring 2017.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tappan Zee bridges in New York --SteveStrummer 01:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very gray and very small, but good quality. A large photo of this motif on a nicer day could possibly be a Featured Picture, but I mean much larger - like 10 MP or more and of very high quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Let's discuss. I think this is a good example of an image we should expect more from. It's not cropped in order to remove disturbing background/foreground objects, and the camera can shoot +20MP, so it seems to have been downsampled on purpose. The absolute deadline is 2MP, but as we see in the Guidelines, "For "easy to take" images, reviewers may choose to demand more"... I think this is such an image, one that really should have a higher resolution to be considered a good image.--Peulle 07:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle --Milseburg 09:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Massive compression artifacts. Landscape photos below 4 MPixels shouldn't be accepted as QI nowadays. --Smial 07:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question - What should I look for in order to see compression artifacts? -- Ikan Kekek 10:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan if you look closely especially at the water, it doesn't seem to have captured the detail of water. Magnify it up a bit and you can see more clearly 8x8 pixel blocks making up the image. Each JPG is composed of 8x8 tiles, and more compression means less information can be recorded per tile. Areas like foliage and small ripples on the sea require more information to capture, so are prone to smudging but the smudging has a hard 8x8 square edge. Also low information means it can't record hard higher-contrast edges in the image, so you get a kind of echo round the edges of the metal work. Sometimes these look like little gnats flying around. Once you are used to these effects, they are easier to spot without magnifying. It's absolutely inexcusable. Other give-away is the filesize is really really small. -- Colin 11:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I do see this when I enlarge the photo. I tried enlarging a good FP photo to the same degree (ultimately, 230%), and unlike this photo, it still looks pristine. However, I did have to enlarge this photo to see the artifacts. I've pulled my support vote because of this. -- Ikan Kekek 18:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Beautiful_demoiselle_(Calopteryx_virgo)_male_close_up.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Beautiful demoiselle (Calopteryx virgo) male, Dorset --Charlesjsharp 20:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Below 2 MPixel limit --Uoaei1 04:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would be grateful if someone else would look at this as User:Uoaei1 must be away. Charlesjsharp 13:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Just good enough for QI, I think. Not wild about the crop, but it seems to be a deliberate choice.--Peulle 17:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes it is; the rest of the abdomen is not in focus, but the thorax/head are nice and sharp. Charlesjsharp 21:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 20:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-05-30_Wegberg,_Ente_am_Teich_(06)_(freddy2001).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ente am Teich in Wegberg --Freddy2001 18:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 11:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The eye is not sharp and most of the bird is way out of focus. Charlesjsharp 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Charles, sorry. --Basotxerri 08:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ralf. --Manfred Kuzel 03:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Cute, and a very large picture, but if you want me to consider whether to support, you must identify the duck by its Latin name in your description. -- Ikan Kekek 05:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Veitenstein_Aussicht_0204-PSD.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View from Veitenstein in the nature park Haßberge --Ermell 08:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohlerBremen 15:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree Here too, HDR too strong. --MirandaAdramin 09:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I don't like the blurred leaves on the right side, but the rest of the photo is quite good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 06:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. The twigs on the right are for tastes (I personally don't like them) but absolutely acceptable IMO. --Basotxerri 07:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me.--Lmbuga 22:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Вид на скалистый берег с мыса Белый Нос.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of the shore from Cape "White Nose", Crimea --N 3 14 15 92 65 16:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support OK. --Peulle 11:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think that photo should be brighter for QI --Rbrechko 09:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  SupportIMO enough for QI. --A.Savin 06:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 16:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)