Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 05 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Langweerderwielen-Langwarder_Wielen._Harde_wind,_regen,_hagel_en_natte_sneeuw_op_22-02-2020._(d.j.b)_14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Langweerderwielen-Langwarder Wielen. Bench next to the bike path on the side of the lake.
    --Famberhorst 06:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The bench is not on focus, sorry --Poco a poco 08:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me; please discuss. -- Spurzem 10:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The focus is behind the bench. --Peulle 08:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Casa_das_Rosas_023.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Casa das RosasI --Wilfredor 18:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but strong noise. --Jakubhal 19:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Better now --Wilfredor 16:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - In this version, at least, it looks like some grain in the dark areas, and it seems acceptable to me. Nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek 08:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough.--Smial 14:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Exterior_of_Notre-Dame_de_Montréal_Basilica.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Exterior of Notre-Dame de Montréal --Wilfredor 00:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Nice but dust spots --Podzemnik 03:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks, done --Wilfredor 23:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment If nobody answer, I will send it to discuss :) --Wilfredor 17:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    I disagree. --Wilfredor 16:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good good, thanks. --Podzemnik 05:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Ancien_African_Art_of_Recife.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ancien African Art of RecifeI --Wilfredor 00:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment There are dust spots. Also can you provide more information about the file? Where is it etc. --Podzemnik 02:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Done and very difficult find the information --Wilfredor 23:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment If nobody answer, I will send it to discuss :) --Wilfredor 17:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    I disagree. --Wilfredor 16:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks but again, I'm not sure why you didn't just wait a bit. --Podzemnik 05:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Podzemnik sorry, i was not sure how many days can stay a nomination active. --Wilfredor 13:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
At least 1 week, I thought? -- Ikan Kekek 21:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ikan, I will try that way --Wilfredor 01:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Recife_Favela_Detran_street.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Recife Favela Detran streetI --Wilfredor 00:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Can you provide geo location? Also good candidate for FP I think --Podzemnik 03:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Done --Wilfredor 00:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    If nobody answer, I will send it to discuss :) --Wilfredor 17:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    I disagree. --Wilfredor 16:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support but @Wilfredor: why did you send it to a discussion and then disagreed with yourself? Things like these don't need to be sent into the discussions where they only demand more time of the community. --Podzemnik 05:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Penero_en_Bahia_de_Juangriego.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Penero en Bahia de JuangriegoI, --Wilfredor 13:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Noisy and unsharp, sorry. --Kallerna 07:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Its not a DSLR camera and IMHO its ok --Wilfredor 17:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Are we reviewing photos or cameras? --Kallerna 23:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • We are reviewing photos, however, the quality of sharpness of a DSLR camera is going to be very different from a photo of a compact camera. I could easily reduce the size of the image to meet the requirements and so it would be a QI photo, however, I have decided to upload the photo at its maximum size knowing that the sharpness is not the same as a DSLR. --Wilfredor 18:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment So the requirements are different for different cameras? The size of this image is not that huge, downsampling would not help. --Kallerna 19:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blurry and unsharp Seven Pandas 03:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose and downsampling would not make it a QI either, since this is exactly the type of case where the rules say this is not allowed. --Peulle 08:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Gulfstream_G650ER,_EBACE_2018,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(BL7C0598).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gulfstream G650ER, EBACE 2018 --MB-one 08:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality--Horst J. Meuter 18:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see a good reason for clipping the wings and tail. Is there more in the image that can be added? Also is there any more of image of the nose of this aircraft, it would help to add it as well. --GRDN711 23:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment unfortunately this is as wide as it gets --MB-one 08:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Decline due to clipping of tail, wings and distracting background. --GRDN711 18:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per GRDN711. --Palauenc05 06:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 08:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

File:French_macaroons.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination jummy --Shisma 18:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question Are ‘imnothere39’ (on Flickr) and Shisma (on Commons) the same person? Else the attribution of the image is wrong. --Aristeas 09:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes. thats me --Shisma 15:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you!  Support OK for me. --Aristeas 16:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think that the cakes in front right and behind are sharp enough for QI. But please let's discuss. -- Spurzem 20:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    •  Comment I had assumed that this photo was intentionally taken with very low DoF, and IMHO this is OK for this subject. But you are right that it is a good idea to hear more voices. --Aristeas 06:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support i find the use of DoF adds a sense of scale in this image and brings attention to the subject -----Alorin 17:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 Comment That is interesting. The main subject is out of focus at the front and back, and therefore the image is good. -- Spurzem 23:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF issues, random crop, so-so sharpness, disturbing elements in the background, wrong WB Poco a poco 10:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem and Poco. Also unsatisfactory lighting. --Smial 00:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 09:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)