Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 30 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Agraulis_vanillae_vanillae,_caterpillar.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Caterpillar. --Filo gèn' 06:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support
    Good quality.--Fischer.H 07:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose I'd like to have more opinions on this. There is a quite big blown area and the subject is quite small --Podzemnik 03:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
     Comment - The subject is sharp enough, IMO, but please dial back the highlights, as Podzemnik mentions. -- Ikan Kekek 05:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose blown highlights. Charlesjsharp 11:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose The highlights are not good. IMO not fixable. Sharpness could be better too. --XRay 04:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 21:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-07-20_Lennon_Wall_in_Hong_Kong_book_fair(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A part of Lennon Wall in Hong Kong book fair --SCP-2000 05:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose IMHO too grainy for the given resolution --Podzemnik 20:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
     OpposeSorry.I think it is not too grainy --SCP-2000 03:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Too much grain. A lower ISO value should be better. And a better lense. --XRay 04:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 21:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Saras_crane_by_Sanjay_Tha_Shrestha.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saras crane (Antigone antigone). --Nirmal Dulal 09:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality, but unfortunately tight crop at the bottom --Uoaei1 15:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
     Support The symmetry of the birds in this image is appealing. DoF could be greater but f5.6 with a 500 mm focal length is OK. Per Uoaei1, what troubles me is cutting off their feet at the bottom. Is there more? --GRDN711 01:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi GRDN711, sorry this photo was uploaded by another user and I think he took this photograph like this, feet cut off, I just nominated it because I thought it's Good Quality even the feet are not there, but they might looks better with feet, Thanks. -- Nirmal Dulal 04:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 Comment If the feet were in the original image, I would like to see them in the image nominated for QI. As they are not, the image must be evaluated as is. For QI lack of feet does not qualify as a distracting foreground feature. The bird in the center may be leaning but the image does not appear to be tilted. IMO this image has more attributes supporting QI than against. --GRDN711 15:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 Question is it really whole body needed to be a QI? just a query, Regards. -Nirmal Dulal (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Nirmal Dulal: No, that is not a requirement, but when you take a shot you should make up your mind. Do you want to show something of the subject or you want to show everything, showing 90% looks to me like a randomed choice and it is just disturbing as the viewer (at least I feel like that) misses something in the image and an abrupt cutoff like here is a no go in terms of composition to me. Poco a poco 16:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment One for Poco a poco to assess. Charlesjsharp 07:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose appeares tilted. -- Smial 12:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Charles :) Poco a poco 16:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough for me. --Skrissh 05:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Nice composition. Quality is decent. I think the cutoff above the feet is OK in context. -- Ikan Kekek 06:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan Kekek. Very good quality. --Armenak Margarian 14:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -Nabin K. Sapkota 16:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 21:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Asphalt_crew_Drammen_2019_(8).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Asphalt crew at a construction site in Drammen.--Peulle 06:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Maybe you should try pushing the shadows a litte --Dktue 13:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I can try that. Don't know why this is in CR, though.--Peulle 06:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done--Peulle 14:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Fine, and indeed why is this in CR? -- Ikan Kekek 14:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   ----Seven Pandas 21:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Asphalt_crew_Drammen_2019_(7).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Asphalt crew at a construction site in Drammen.--Peulle 06:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Light comes from the wrong side, especially the front of the truck is too dark. -- Spurzem 07:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've seen images with similar light conditions promoted before.--Peulle 14:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Ermell 07:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.Tobias ToMar Maier 02:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - OK for me, too. -- Ikan Kekek 14:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   -- Seven Pandas 21:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)