Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 04 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Animal_transport_in_recife,_pernambuco_state_of_Brazil.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Animal transport in recife --The Photographer 14:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO too much noise. --XRay 15:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good enough for QI, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 20:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per XRay, lack of detail by NR, sorry. --Basotxerri 08:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not good enough considering the resolution.--Peulle 10:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Three Creeks - Big Walnut Creek 1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Big Walnut Creek at the confluence of three creeks --Sixflashphoto 02:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, not a QI for me, the object is not defined --Basile Morin 02:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - The "object" is a creek, and it looks like a creek. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 03:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Really too dark, colors are not there. Simple photo, not QI. - Basile Morin 03:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I did make it a bit brighter Sixflashphoto 03:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 07:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 10:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

File:2017_Tęcza_w_Kłodzku.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rainbow in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 08:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 15:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree --Basile Morin 02:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Quality is perfectly fine to me. On what basis do you disagree? -- Ikan Kekek 04:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Basile Morin: That's it, disagreeing is absolutely OK but please state always your reasons why. --Basotxerri 07:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Per Ikan Kekek, Quality is fine to me. Why do you disagree? -- Sixflashphoto 12:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 10:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Brighton_West_Pier_2017_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination West Pier, Brighton.. --ArildV 05:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Amazing. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry for my meddling. I'm studying this image for at least two hours, but I'm still not convinced that blurryness as a tool to show decay can override my expecations of a QI. --PtrQs 22:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It does indeed look blurred.--Peulle 13:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Info It was (if I remember correctly) heavy rain when I took the images.--ArildV 09:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Then the result is understandable, but sadly it still ruined your shot this time.--Peulle 16:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 10:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Seglfjellet in Beiarn with Leirvika nature reserve (cropped).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Seglfjellet in Beiarn with Leirvika nature reserve --Frankemann 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Nice composition, but the foreground is far from sharp. I guess a much lower f-value would have given a much sharper bottom-part. Please crop the bottom inclusive the boat (and I know there is not left a lot) --Michielverbeek 20:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • OK Vel, something is still left! --Frankemann 19:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • IMO a bit is not a problem, I'm just waiting for a 3rd opinion if it's a Q1 or not--Michielverbeek 07:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Instead of just letting it sit here hoping that someone will come along, let's take this to CR. --W.carter 10:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Pretty composition, a little soft, but I think it's good enough quality for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 10:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 10:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Memmingen_-_Wallenstein_2016_-_Adel_8_-_Auszug.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Two generations of nobles. Image taken during the Wallenstein reenactments 2016, in Memmingen, Germany. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 18:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose None of the faces sharp enough IMO. Sorry. --Ermell 07:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 09:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main objects are not very sharp, probably because of motion blur. --Shansov.net 18:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 10:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

File:2017_-_КБЗ_-_06_-_Піп_Іван_Мармароський.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Карпатський біосферний заповідник, Рахівський, Тячівський, Хустський, Виноградівський райони --Moahim 07:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support I like this -- Sixflashphoto 08:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This panorama is barely 2 Mpix, please provide a higher resolution. --C messier 10:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • :✓ Done I have uploaded larger version. --Moahim 18:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good now.--Peulle 14:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe a bit oversharpened but OK. --Basotxerri 16:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - If the colors are accurate, I like this photo and definitely consider it good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 10:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 10:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

File:2017_-_Svetitskhoveli_Cathedral_-_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Svetitskhoveli Cathedral, Mtskheta --Moahim 06:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 06:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs better categories, also too small, please provide a higher resolution. --C messier 10:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • : Comment I have uploaded larger version. --Moahim 18:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
     Comment It is good practice to upload the largest available version. Anyway, please add more specific categories. --C messier 07:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support its good so. --Ralf Roleček 11:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Good quality, but oppose per C messier until you improve the categories. -- Ikan Kekek 10:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Done. --Moahim 16:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks.  Support now, though this photo may be overcategorized now. I question Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Georgia, Category:Cathedrals in Georgia, Category:World Heritage Sites in Georgia and maybe even Category:Mtskheta. It seems to me, the category for this specific cathedral should be a subset of all those other categories. But let's wait for a second opinion on that. -- Ikan Kekek 04:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I will again temporarily  Oppose because I think it's important for you to get categorization right, so that we don't have to discuss it at Consensual Review every time you submit a photo to QIC. Please read Com:Overcat. -- Ikan Kekek 20:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I have fixed categories. --Moahim (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 Comment - I doubt that. Category:Svetitskhoveli is subordinate to Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Georgia. -- Ikan Kekek 07:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Maybe. Fixed both images. --Moahim 09:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek 21:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 20:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 10:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)