Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 23 2024

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Dromoland_Castle_panorama_at_dusk.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dromoland Castle, seen from the nearby lawn at dusk. --Grendelkhan 03:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Some chroma noise, but ok for a night shot. --Plozessor 05:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overlooked the stitching error, thx Ermell for spotting! --Plozessor 08:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stitching error at the stairs and a too tight crop IMO. --Ermell 16:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Dassault_Rafale,_Paris_Air_Show_2019,_Le_Bourget_(SIAE8701,_cropped).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dassault Rafale on flying display at Paris Air Show 2019 --MB-one 09:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question Possible framing? --Трифонов Андрей 19:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done better? --MB-one 08:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 Support Good quality. --Трифонов Андрей 14:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's a cool shot but the detail is just not there, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 19:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I understand that it's difficult to take a sharp picture of a military jet in flight, but still this is too blurry. Would have been better with shorter exposure (and higher ISO and/or lower f-stop instead). --Plozessor 05:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Maison_Carree_Nimes_France_photographed_by_Robbie_Conceptuel.png[edit]

  • Nomination Roman Empire temple in Nimes France called Maison Carre --Conceptuel 22:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Трифонов Андрей 19:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low level of details, perspective distortion --Jakubhal 05:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks like an overprocessed smartphone picture with low detail and many NR artifacts (unfortunately it has no EXIF details), plus perspective is not ok. --Plozessor 05:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor, overprocessed with very low level of detail --LexKurochkin 07:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. And overexposed. --Smial 23:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Renault_Rafale_GIMS_2024_1X7A2359.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Renault Rafale at GIMS 2024 --Alexander-93 08:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 18:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too dark --Charlesjsharp 20:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charlesjsharp, lower parts of the car are blending with the background. --Plozessor 05:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The very unfavourable lighting leads to extremely high subject contrast, which can probably only be reproduced satisfactorily using HDR techniques. --Smial 23:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Stolperstein_2_-_Uerdinger_Straße_25,_Golzheim,_Düsseldorf_-_Gert_&_Hans_Mayer.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stolperstein for Gert & Hans Mayer --Reda Kerbouche 17:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The image is too unsharp / has too few details in my opinion, sorry --PantheraLeo1359531 18:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • other options --Reda Kerbouche 19:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Did PantheraLeo1359531 actually oppose? Otherwise this should not have been moved to discussions. For me the picture is ok, given the high resolution. --Plozessor 05:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The lighting may not be quite optimal, but the photo is certainly sharp enough and also sufficient for an A3-size printout. --Smial 23:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Europäische_Wildkatze_im_Wildpark_Schloss_Tambach_8.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Felis silvestris silvestris in Tambach game park --Plozessor 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose cropped feet and something in foreground --Charlesjsharp 20:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Note that QI guidelines do not say "there must be nothing in foreground" but "elements in foreground must not be disturbing". This fraction of the green fence in foreground of the green grass does not seem "disturbing" to me. But let's hear other's opinions. --Plozessor 05:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but for me that fence is disturbing, so I have to oppose it for now. The cat has beautiful details, and I would change my vote if you made a portrait frame cropping off unnecessary sides. I don't mind the missing legs for such a portrait photo. --Jakubhal 20:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Jakubhal and Charlesjsharp: New version, please have a look. --Plozessor 05:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
     Support Thanks, OK for me --Jakubhal 05:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.Anna.Massini 14:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Anna.MassiniAnna.Massini 14:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. --Smial 23:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_Basking_posture_of_Symphaedra_nais_(Forster,_1771)_-_Baronet_WLB_IMG_3604a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Open wing Basking posture of Symphaedra nais (Forster, 1771) - Baronet --Sandipoutsider 02:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose little definition --Charlesjsharp 20:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Resolution is too low, sorry -- Basile Morin 04:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Lupinus_arboreus_A74111920240108.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Lupinus arboreus. --Rjcastillo 00:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
     Support Good quality. --PaestumPaestum 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Unfortunately, at least the lower whorl of flowers is out of focus, the upper one looks very soft and there might be some overexposed spots. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
     Comment(both) Thanks for reviews. it adjusted a little. --Rjcastillo 01:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)