Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 18 2022

Consensual review edit

File:Spotted_dove_(Spilopelia_chinensis)_at_Kairwaan_goa,_Uttarakhand_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Spotted dove (Spilopelia chinensis) at Kairwaan goa, Uttarakhand. --Satdeep Gill 11:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 20:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
      Oppose head facing away. the other photo is QI --Charlesjsharp 22:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
      Comment I don't see the problem in its head facing away. It's not like we don't see the head or that it's not sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 23:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support as Ikan --Stepro 14:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. --Smial 14:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality --Jakubhal 05:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 07:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

File:2022-03-13_Wintersport,_Skisprung-Weltcup_der_Frauen_in_Oberhof_1DX_7306_by_Stepro.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination FIS Ski Jumping World Cup Oberhof 2022: Marita Kramer (AUT) as the winner of the overall World Cup, award ceremony. By --Stepro 07:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Support Good quality. --MB-one 12:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree, sorry! Closed eyes. --Steindy 23:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  Comment Of course the eyes are closed. That's the aim of this photo, to show the dreamy expression in a very emotional moment. But what does that have to do with the quality of the photo? --Stepro 12:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  Comment OK! I acknowledge that as of now, closed-eye photos are quality photos and I'm too crazy to rate this. I am only surprised that this was not recognized ten days before. --Steindy 22:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Nevertheless, the picture quality is good, and the image is useful. Red clothing in front of a slightly different red background is of course creepy, but the photographer really can't help that. --Smial 10:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
      Support Good quality; closed eyes people are people too. --Trougnouf 11:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 13:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Steindy 15:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Beihai_Park_Tempel-20110104-RM-115812.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Temple in Beihai Park in Beijing --Ermell 08:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Oppose The roof on the right spoils the composition for me --MB-one 13:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
      Support I think it's not possible to take a picture from this place without the roof at right. The picture seems to be a little bit blur and the crop at right is a little bit too much. I want more opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 08:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support The truly ambitious wiki photographer removes interfering poles, trees, signs, roofs, and overhead power lines with the help of the tools he always carries, such as a chainsaw, angle grinder, or bolt cutter. For the use of explosives, the test series are allegedly not yet completed. But seriously: I actually find this obviously unavoidable roof edge quite cleverly included in the composition. The lighting is ok, the sharpness is acceptable, and even if you find a few sharpening artifacts, the overall image impression is still well balanced. --Smial 10:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  •   Support Not an FP per MB-one, but a solid, even quite good QI per others. -- Ikan Kekek 13:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Steindy 15:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Meerkat_standing_on_a_rock.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Meerkat standing on a rock. --imitrijemat 00:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Oppose soft and dark --Charlesjsharp 10:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    How is that dark? --Dimitrijemat 13:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Brighter background, but sharp enough for me. You can see individual hairs. -- Ikan Kekek 11:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree. --Matutinho 19:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support as the others --Stepro 12:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Steindy 15:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

File:20181208_JASDF_F-15C_E-2_formation_flight_Naha_Air_Show_2018-8.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A formation flight with a JASDF E-2C Hawkeye and two F-15J Eagles. --Balon Greyjoy 15:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 15:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • ,  Oppose I disagree. Image is under-exposed; may be fixable in post-processing, but is not QI at the moment. --GRDN711 16:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment It could have just been a gray day, and the planes are sharp, so I'm OK with that, but I see two dust spots: One a bit below the middle of the left margin and the other just to the left of the lowest plane. Please remove those. -- Ikan Kekek 07:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support 3 dust specks removed and exposure of F-15 jets corrected - meets QI criteria for me now --Virtual-Pano 15:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support per Virtual-Pano. -- Ikan Kekek 22:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support now with changes by Virtual-Pano. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Virtual-Pano 12:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)