Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 09 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Close_up_portrait_of_model_Courtney.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Photograph of a model --Cvmontuy 21:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Dnalor 01 21:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose - The source is given as a Flickr user, though the link produces a 404 error. The photo does not appear to be by you, and if it's not by a Commoner, it's per se ineligible for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 03:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose Because it is a Flickr image Sebring12Hrs 08:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Non commons user photos not eligible. Flickr photos ok if user also a commons user. Seven Pandas 19:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. There's no discussion here - this rule is absolute, not a guideline.--Peulle 22:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 22:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Lago_Ober,_Alemania,_2019-05-17,_DD_82-88_PAN.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Obersee, Germany --Poco a poco 10:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Tilted. --ArildV 11:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Arild is right I think.--Ermell 12:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
     Support Very good now.--Ermell 06:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted cw. --ArildV 14:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
     Comment Tilt corrected Poco a poco 19:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
      •  Support Great photo and quality. --ArildV 19:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Very beautiful and good quality -- Spurzem 12:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Despite the remaining slight tilt, I think it's good quality. Sebring12Hrs 12:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Exposure of the clouds on the very high side, but acceptable as it is not disturbing. --Smial 12:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 18:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Un_passerotto_su_un_olivo_nella_primavera_2020_Uccellino.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A sparrow on an olive tree in spring 2020. --PROPOLI87 17:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Lacks detail, not a QI, sorry --Poco a poco 16:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. I see no tack to be mentioned. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Not sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 21:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: When I see the sparrow in its natural size, it is sharp enough. But maybe it's just that I have better glasses. ;-) -- Spurzem 22:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't wear glasses, and I checked it at its size as stated on Wikipedia and found it unsharp at that size. -- Ikan Kekek 00:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, why do you address only me, not Poco? -- Ikan Kekek 07:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • With this camera it is the best result I could get, except being able to get closer to the subject, who then runs away in fear. I'll try again. PROPOLI87 11:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 11:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The photographer did nothing wrong with this picture. It is well exposed, well composed, seems to show natural colors. Also the camera settings are probably optimally chosen. The problem is that the camera used is working at the limit with such pictures. We see artifacts of sensor noise and its suppression, and we see that the lens is somewhat soft at the chosen focal length. --Smial 09:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco a poco and Ikan. Quality is really bad, very difficult to take quality images with this camera. --Carschten 10:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yeah that's not a QI, sorry.--Peulle 12:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Hallo Carschten, ich überlege mir auch seit einiger Zeit, ob oder wie lange ich hier noch Bilder vorstellen kann – nicht nur wegen meines erheblich vorgerückten Alters, sondern vor allem wegen meiner Kamera. Ich würde mir sehr gern ein Modell der 10.000-Euro-Klasse (vielleicht auch ein bisschen darunter, besser aber darüber) mit entsprechenden Objektiven zulegen, um die steigenden Anforderungen erfüllen und Bilder mit 60 kB oder mehr zu liefern, doch das kann ich mir – ganz offen gesagt – nicht leisten. Aber abgesehen davon finde ich es bedauerlich, dass die Bewertungen hier immer häufiger kaum noch die Motive und die Bildgestaltung zu berücksichtigen scheinen, sondern in erster Linie die Pixel- und kB-Zahl. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem 21:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --A.Savin 08:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 14:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)