Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 01 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Chute-Montmorency,_Quebec_city,_Canada.png[edit]

  • Nomination The falls --Wilfredor 02:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Neutral Sorry. It may be a really good image, but I've tried to view it on two different computers. Good computers. But: I can't. It's the filesize. Why PNG format? --XRay 05:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't set an oppose vote. --XRay 04:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support PNG is the only way to have 16-bit depth images viewable in-browser at the moment. [1] is the most promising way to solve this situation. --Trougnouf 07:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the question, png preserves more detailed information, not necessarily visual, but that facilitates future editing of the image. --Wilfredor 14:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 649,14 MB. But let's try to show a 16 bit image on a 8 bit monitor. Please add another version as JPEG. --XRay 14:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Please do not misunderstand: Just upload a second file in JPEG format and add a link (as other versions) to the JPEG file. --XRay 12:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Humongous file, but I was able to open and view it. Impressive! -- Ikan Kekek 07:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, had no problems with viewing it online :) --PantheraLeo1359531 17:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO high quality and very impressive image. Thanks! --LexKurochkin 18:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --LexKurochkin 22:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

File:City_hall_of_Uzes_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination City hall of Uzes, Gard, France. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 02:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • a bit dark --Ezarate 23:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject is surrounded by extraneous items (such as the light pole and the tree branches); but such items also illustrate the urban context of the city hall and their position is well-managed in the frame (they don't cover the building; the two vehicles are also well placed in the frame; the extra room on the left allow to obtain a balanced composition without cutting the tree). @Ezarate: Brightness seems natural to me. To sum up, I think this is a good photo overall with good sharpness and even lighting. But I would like other opinions to pitch in. --Lion-hearted85 11:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Lion-hearted85, though I don't consider anything extraneous, just part of the scene. But did anyone oppose, or is this again a case of confusion about the term "Discuss"? I again invite anyone reading to participate at Commons talk:Quality images candidates#Confusion over the use of "Discuss", because we'll never change the status to "More votes" unless we get a consensus of more than 3 people. -- Ikan Kekek 07:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --LexKurochkin 22:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Head of Chinese goose in Locarno 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Head of Anser cygnoides --Commonists 09:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Low quality overall, and too wide crop for a portrait, in case the picture is intended as such. --A.Savin 11:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree. Other opinions? Thanks --Commonists 12:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
     Comment Can you accept at least one oppose to your nom, especially if it is well founded? --A.Savin 17:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think you're right, do you? I don't think so. It's called democracy. --Commonists 19:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpening artifacts visible in 100% view. But this shortcoming is not crucial, since it is not annoyingly noticeable at normal viewing sizes. What moves me to a contra is the very unfavorable lighting, which only allows insufficient details to be seen in the shadow areas and at the same time leads to eroded highlights in bright areas that are important for the picture. --Smial 11:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial.--Peulle 09:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --LexKurochkin 22:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

File:A_girl_standing_in_the_rain.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A girl standing in the rain --Maksimsokolov 03:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. Nice. --Christian Ferrer 10:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose DoF is too shallow, much of the subject is blurry. F/2.8 is too wide for this image. --Tagooty 15:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice composition --Moroder 08:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --MB-one 10:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support would prefer a tad more DoF, but it's ok for QI IMO Rhododendrites 03:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --LexKurochkin 22:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Palakpaneer_Rayagada_Odisha_0009.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Palak Paneer is a popular Indian dish of Indian cottage cheese cubes in a mild, spiced smooth spinach sauce. (by Lopanayak) --Atudu 05:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Top part lacks detail. --Peulle 06:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's OK that some of the grains of rice aren't detailed and that it's pretty good food photography, overall. However, a few more specific and well-chosen categories would be welcome. -- Ikan Kekek 08:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. I would have chosen a longer focal length (difficult with a cell phone) and the many small reflections are a bit distracting, but the overall composition is very good and the food looks appetizing, which is the most important thing in food photography. --Smial 15:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ivan Kekek. --Nefronus 20:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I added some of the categories - I think this is well composed and high quality, love the colors --Kritzolina 20:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good categories. Thank you! -- Ikan Kekek 23:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial. --Aristeas 08:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --LexKurochkin 22:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Gol_Guppas-Noida-UP-SP001.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Panipuri or fuchka or gupchup or golgappa is a type of snack that originated in the Indian subcontinent. (by Sutapa Pal) --Atudu 05:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: composition. --Peulle 06:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Not a bad composition for me. Please discuss. --Lion-hearted85 18:58, 19 April 2021
  •  Weak oppose I didn't disagree with this decline. I feel like it's not sufficiently well-lit, I don't love the crops and I don't think enough of it is sharp. But only weak oppose, and I'd love another opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 05:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support This is really excellent food photography compared to many, far too many random snapshots here on commons. You can clearly see that the photographer has put a lot of thought into making the food look appetizing. --Smial 15:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition might be good, but IMO DoF is too shallow for this composition and half-cropped glass spoils the overall image impression, sorry. --LexKurochkin 19:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support While there could be improvements, the main food focus is sharp and agree with Smial on the care and composition. --GRDN711 23:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial --Kritzolina 20:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle,only the center is in focus,sorry --Commonists 15:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Which is obviously an essential part of the composition to lead the viewer's eye to a certain part of the photographed scene. --Smial 23:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, my problem is with the cut-off glass.--Peulle 09:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support per Smial. --Aristeas 08:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just commenting to say I'm not sure about QI, but this looks delicious. :) Rhododendrites 03:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --LexKurochkin 22:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)