Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 04 2019

Consensual review edit

File:JKRUK_20190219_ROBERT_BIEDROŃ_KIELCE_DSCN2269.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Robert Biedroń - konwencja wyborcza partii Wiosna, Kielce, Targi Kielce, 19.02.2019 r. By User:Jrkruk --Piotr Bart 13:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Subject is sharp, why not ? --Eatcha 13:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I think it's little noisy, also some jpeg artifacts and minor CAs. --Jakubhal 19:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many artefacts.--Ermell 13:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Milseburg 14:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Circle_file.487.png edit

 

  • Nomination circleI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Websterdead 16:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   SupportGood quality.. --Cayambe 06:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, no, such a simple shape is not a QI --Poco a poco 10:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco, irrespective of copyright. -- Ikan Kekek 06:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For sure also not a work of uploader, although hard to imagine actual author copyrighted such simple shape. Anyway per Poco, too simple to be QI. --Jakubhal 13:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle 18:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Milseburg 14:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:LibellulA.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Libellula --DnaX 11:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Needs a precise categorisation. --Ermell 13:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Needs a precise categorisation --Ermell 13:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 18:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. --Ermell 14:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'd support it for the impressive resolution on the compound eyes alone, but as Ermell says, it needs proper categorization. It also needs geographic coordinates. I have to oppose at least for now. -- Ikan Kekek 06:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Milseburg 14:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Torre_de_Hércules.501_-_A_Coruña.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Torre de Hércules, A Coruña (Spain).--Drow male 18:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Eatcha 18:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't agree, not enough space at the top --Michielverbeek 19:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not to mention the CAs all over. --PtrQs 15:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a tilt, too --Poco a poco 17:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can fix the tilt, but I do not think I can fix the CAs without significant Quality loss Eatcha 18:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Milseburg 14:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Herbstnebel_P1010237.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Herbstnebel im Pfälzerwald, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany.--Fischer.H 18:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. I like this kind of pictures but this one is way too overprocessed. Sorry, no, --Der Angemeldete 19:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 19:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Beautiful, but overprocessed per Der Angemeldete. -- Ikan Kekek 07:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too much processing. --PtrQs 13:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - It's good -- Websterdead 15:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle 07:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 14:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Polyphylla decemlineata July 26 2017.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Ten-lined June beetle July 26 2017 --Alex of Canada 05:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Unsharp, blown details, sorry. --Der Angemeldete 14:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I personally would disagree, but you're of course entitled to your own opinion. Can you tell me what you mean by blown details though? Alex of Canada 23:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Your focus goes to the head of bug, right? But you stood on the left side of it. So you defocused parts of the body while parts of the outer left, where you might stood, are much clearer than the rest. The bug has got one sharp limb, one half defocussed half sharp limb and one unsharp limp. That distorts the depth of field. Because of the unsharp parts of the stone under the bug theres some sort of aberration in the blurred details that looks like grain (especially on the left, where this unnatural focus is). The most easy way to fix this, I would think, would be to blur the sharp parts on left and then use a gentle unsharp mask on the whole image. Of course that's just an opinion at the end of day. If you want to, I withdraw my rejection or we do a consensual review so that others can give theire opinion too. It's still a good photograph.Der Angemeldete 01:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you so much for that review! I'll definitely keep some of the things you said in my mind. I would appreciate it being moved to consensual review, but I understand I'm probably biased towards my own photos, so if you think that'd be a bad idea, that's fine. I'm not going to comment on this again, as the thread is quite long. Alex of Canada 01:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Alright then, I'll send it to Discussion.Der Angemeldete 14:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - 1.5-3 inches, so perhaps sharp enough, but your categorization is wrong. You need to add Category:Polyphylla decemlineata and delete the general Scarabaeidae category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
  •   Support - Good quality. -- Websterdead 09:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low DOF, low detail, noise reduction artifacts, and only just about 2 MPixels, which is in the allowed range, but IMO not enough for such a subject. --Smial 18:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Considering the size of the insect, I think it's sharp enough, now that it's correctly categorized. -- Ikan Kekek 06:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Bijay chaurasia 13:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Not sharp, too low DOF --Estormiz 17:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The DoF is too shallow, IMO.--Peulle 18:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too unsharp. --C messier 13:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose →   Declined   --Milseburg 14:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:A_little_white_camel_03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination little white camel, in the desert of western Mongolia, Khovd region --Alexandr frolov 09:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment If you delete the dust spot in the upper right corner, it will be a QI. --PtrQs 11:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I fixed the spot and as you said if the spot fixed it's QI --Eatcha 09:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hello @Eatcha: , first of all, don't you think that the correct separation of tasks is only preserved if those who manipulate the picture are not the same who review them? Secondly by repairing (verschlimmbessern) the dust spot you copied a more green square from the left sky over the speck. I'm sorry, but in this state it's not sufficient for QI. --PtrQs 23:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, will never review a QI in which I contributed in any way, please take a look again hope I fixed it this time. Eatcha 08:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    •   Support OK now. --PtrQs 13:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is a QI, but Eatcha, it's generally considered impolite to "fix" someone else's photo while it's nominated, unless they ask for you to edit it. -- Ikan Kekek 06:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 13:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Ancient_City_Floating_Market_(II).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The Floating Market in Ancient City (Mueang Boran), Samut Prakan Province, Thailand. --Supanut Arunoprayote 19:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 20:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: Only the blue building lies in DOF, left half of picture not sharp (see roof tiles), leafs overexposed. --PtrQs 01:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose And the leaves shows overprocessing IMO, --Cvmontuy 04:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's good -- Websterdead 14:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Sharpness not perfect, but good enough regarding the resolution. There are some more small issues, but alltogether not really disturbing if viewed in 100% size. --Smial 17:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support QI to me. --Cayambe 07:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 13:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)