Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 12 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Prudnik_-_Pomnik_Poległym_Patriotom_(11).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Memorial of people fighting in the Silesian Uprisings and World War II in Prudnik, Poland (by Wlodek k1) --ElCet 13:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose It's not bad - the memorial is quite nice but the background dark areas are of low quality --Podzemnik 15:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
     Support I disagree and ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 19:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Don't care too much about the background but the main subject should show more detail for QI. --MB-one 17:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose insufficient quality.--Fischer.H 18:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)+
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Market_Square_Fountain_in_Prudnik,_03.02.2019_(8).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Market Square Fountain in Prudnik, Poland (by IG86) --ElCet 12:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Not 100% sure about the sky exposure but ok --Poco a poco 18:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fountain is sharp, but the sky is overexposed... --Tournasol7 19:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Tournasol7 --Michielverbeek 07:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Tournasol7.--Fischer.H 18:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Common_hawk-cuckoo_Satchari.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common hawk-cuckoo. By User:Abdulmominbd --RockyMasum 12:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose - IMO, not sharp enough. This bird is ca. 34 cm according to w:Common hawk-cuckoo. -- Ikan Kekek 21:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. -- Spurzem 19:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 01:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me.--Fischer.H 18:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Ciampanii_dla_Sciblota_Val_Gherdëina.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Ciampanil dla Sciblota tower in Val Longia in Gröden - South Tyrol. --Moroder 17:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose There is a significant camera shake in one of the panorama segments near center. Can you replace it? --Shansov.net 17:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment It'sirrelevant at normal image size --Moroder 21:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Not significant IMO. --King of Hearts 06:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Camera shake and/or stitching error. --Smial 21:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Problematic only at full size. Is this Quality Image Candidates or Perfect At Pixel Level Huge Image Candidates? -- Ikan Kekek 06:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Oh, I was thinking that it's "Quality Image candidates", not "Quality when viewed downscaled to 1/44 of Mps provided Candidates" :) I'm actually surprised that you think that panorama errors should be allowed in QI. Especially in images where panorama was not really required (10 shots of 50Mp camera just to get 88Mp?) --Shansov.net 14:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You're claiming this looks good at only 1/44 of full size? Not at all true, IMO. We promote lots of imperfect pictures that are nevertheless judged to be good enough at QIC, and most of them are much smaller than this. -- Ikan Kekek 21:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The mistakes unfortunately also destroy the good overall work here. This is due to the equipment or the processing?--Ermell 13:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not keen enough for QI.--Fischer.H 18:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Týniště_nad_Orlicí,_kostel_svatèho_Mikuláše_Dm326106-2438_IMG_6738_2018-08-05_14.41.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --JRff (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]