Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 03 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Anas_platyrhynchos_(Mallard)_female_swimming_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), female swimming --PumpkinSky 23:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Peulle 07:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose head/beak not in focus. Charlesjsharp 22:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Yes, the duck's bill is clearly out of focus, but the rest of the head is good enough for me and I like the composition and photo in general. Plus it's a much larger photo than many bird portraits. But is there a clearly-established and agreed-upon standard that birds' beaks have to be clear for QI? I wouldn't want to weaken an established standard by voting to support, but that's what I want to do, so convince me I'm wrong. -- Ikan Kekek 06:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support On the whole the bird is sharp enough for QI. It's a large photo and not downsampled in any way. --cart-Talk 09:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 22:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Vergalijo,_Navarra,_España,_2015-01-06,_DD_01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Vergalijo, Navarre, Spain --Poco a poco 05:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Blurred, I'm afraid --A.Savin 08:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, I applied some changes, should be fine now. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 20:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good enough quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK.--Peulle 11:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Kellergassen 12:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 22:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Prunus_cerasus_Montmorency_tree_bark_19.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cherry tree bark, Circumference about 71 cm, diameter about 25 cm. Looks tilted as tree grows slanted left. --PumpkinSky 13:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Doesn't seem to be in focus. --Peulle 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, given that this is a closeup of a very knobby and round tree, I think enough of it is in focus. I also commend it for not being downsampled. --W.carter 16:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This object doesn't move, so I expect no camera shake. But it looks like. --Zoppo59 18:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

File:San Giovanni dei Fiorentini.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Church of San Giovanni dei Fiorentini in Rome, seen of the street Via del Consolato --Rabax63 19:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Needs CCW rotation and possibly a perspective correction. -- Slaunger 21:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thx for Review. --Rabax63 22:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm.. I am in doubt. There are still quite some perspective distortions, but maybe your field of view is so large, that it will look artificial to insist on verticals being vertical? Very difficult light conditions too. The two people in front of the church are overexposed and the shadowy narrow street leading to the church is very dark. I am tending towards oppose, but think it should be discussed. -- Slaunger 16:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the distortions are too great, sorry.--Peulle 07:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 22:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

File:SantissimoMariaTrajanColumn.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Trajan's Forum with view of Trajan's Column and the Church of the Most Holy Name of Mary --Rabax63 19:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality in my opinion. Tournasol7 20:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Rather low quality at the left, the right, and the bottom --A.Savin 07:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. -- Spurzem 20:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)