Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 16 2022

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Lymantria_todara_female.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lymantria todara female --Charlesjsharp 13:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry! Not sharp enough. --Steindy 17:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC).
  • It is sharp, though depth of field is limited. Charlesjsharp 20:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems perfectly in line with images that have been promoted regularly here. You'd need focus stacking to get it any better and I don't think we should insist on that for QIs.--Peulle 06:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose. The sharpness of the image itself is probably quite sufficient, and the depth of field is also adequate when it comes only to the drawing on the wings. But exactly there is a problem: The direct illumination hardly allows to recognize structures and it is not distinguishable whether the bright spots everywhere in the picture are reflections or whether they belong to the natural patterning. For me, unfortunately, no QI because of the unsuitable lighting. --Smial 12:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Vains_Grouin_du_sud_vue_mt_st_michel.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Mont Saint-Michel from the Pointe du Grouin du Sud, in Vains, France --Velvet 10:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose WB off, subject is too far away. --Kallerna 13:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Impressive distant shot. Let's hear other voices. --Milseburg 16:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness isn't great, but it's a gray day. Very painterly. -- Ikan Kekek 00:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Milseburg --Kritzolina 06:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 16:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Footman_moth_(Barsine_cuneonotata).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Footman moth (Barsine cuneonotata) --Charlesjsharp 09:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry! Not sharp enough in wide areas. --Steindy 17:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Second opinion please. This is a sharp image of a small insect. Charlesjsharp 20:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Question How small? The Wikipedia stub does not address that. -- Ikan Kekek 00:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • about 20mm. Charlesjsharp 17:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough, considering the size. -- Ikan Kekek 00:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems perfectly in line with images that have been promoted regularly here. You'd need focus stacking to get it any better and I don't think we should insist on that for QIs.--Peulle 06:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz 06:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 16:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Heortia_vitessoides.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Heortia vitessoides --Charlesjsharp 09:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry! Not sharp enough in wide areas. --Steindy 17:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
    Second opinion please. This is a sharp image of a small insect. Charlesjsharp 20:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz 06:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed, small resolution, lof DOF. --Kallerna 07:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Castle_of_Combret_Nauviale_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castle of Combret in commune of Nauviale, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 03:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Useful if the Description indicates which part of the castle is depicted, the angle of view, etc. --Tagooty 03:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    the position of the photographer determines it --Tournasol7 03:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose The filename and Description imply the full church. The image is a specific part of the church. Potential users search based on text keywords. --Tagooty 02:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    Each photo contains information about the photographer's position. The user can easily find out from which side the photo was taken. --Tournasol7 05:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. --Sebring12Hrs 05:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support You can always ask for more, but description and cats are accurante enough for QI --Poco a poco 18:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz 06:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 16:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

File:SC_Wiener_Neustadt_vs._SK_Austria_Klagenfurt_2015-10-20_(102).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Manuel Wallner, player of SK Austria Klagenfurt. --Steindy 13:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: bottom crop. --Peulle 14:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Would it be better when I cut the photo to 2000x2000 pixels? Let's discuss. --Steindy 23:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Maybe. It's not the size of the photo that bothers me but the fact that the intention here was clearly to capture the whole player and this was not successful, cutting off part of the foot and ball.--Peulle 07:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above. I sometimes find it OK for a photo to leave out a hand here or there, but in this case, cutting off the foot is distracting and ill-serves the composition. -- Ikan Kekek 09:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Info New version uploaded. --Steindy 19:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm OK with this. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 21:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, this one works.--Peulle 06:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Absurd. Less information is better than full (apart from the rather radical downscaling) information? Don't get it. --Smial 13:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Why don't you get it? There are many photos of all types where a crop is essential to create a good composition. Having missed the foot, this crop is fine. Still waiting for @Steindy: to respond on downscaling. Charlesjsharp 08:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment The crop made this a better composition. Downscaling is another issue; I'll look forward to Steindy's response to Charles' question below. -- Ikan Kekek 00:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment I too have always suspected that Steindy's images are downsized but I am sure he can put us right as he wouldn't be nominating downsampled/downsized images in contravention of QI guidelines. Charlesjsharp 21:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC).
  •  Comment It is remarkable that Charlesjsharp never misses an opportunity to try and pee on my leg. Aside from not downsampling, I don't need to either as the quality of the Canon 300/2.8 is so good that with a bit of skill you can get razor sharp photos with it. On the other hand, it's funny that he comes up with these arguments and nominates "stamps" in the format 2,000 × 1,420 px (File:Mating pair of Loxura atymnus Stoll, 1780 - Yamfly WLB.jpg) himself, as done today, at a Camera resolution of 5184x3456 px. I don't even want to philosophize about other Photoshop embellishments. --Steindy 21:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 16:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Common_tern_2022_04_24_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A common tern (Sterna hirundo) in flight --Alexis Lours 12:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 13:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose Lacks sharpness. Sorry. --Ermell 22:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
     Support OK for QI I think. Charlesjsharp 15:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp enough and parts of the wings blown out. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.PROPOLI87 15:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 15:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 16:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)