Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 17 2021

Consensual review edit

File:Богадельня_на_Ивановой_Горе_2020_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Russia, Poorhouse in Proletarsky, Serpukhovsky district --Никонико962 19:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose I disagree.   chromatic aberration and jpeg artifacts in the shadown --Wilfredor 02:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
    Disagree with whom? --A.Savin 02:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
It was a automatic message from the voter tool. It need to be fixed --Wilfredor 02:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. --A.Savin 02:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 09:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Bethlehem_Church_in_ISFAHAN.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bethlehem Church of New Julfa By User:Yare zaman2000 --Hanooz 09:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Great shot, and probably worth QI as-is, but possible to remove the CA in the windows? --Rhododendrites 22:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Rhododendrites: Is it OK now? Hanooz 21:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, that did not remove the CA (the purple along the edges of the window -- the window itself is not bright purple, of course :) -- but did remove a shadow (and left many problems behind). I would definitely revert this most recent change before fixing the CA. I see you posted it to the graphic lab -- I will leave a message there. Rhododendrites 21:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
    I went ahead and removed it and uploaded a new version, but that means I cannot review. :) So I will move to discuss to ensure it gets a review. Rhododendrites 21:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful and good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 09:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality --LexKurochkin 14:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 00:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Basel_Exhibition_demolition-20120505-RM-130836.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Demolition of Basel Exhibition Hall 3 --Ermell 07:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Oppose Insufficient quality. Motion blur on bottom --Wilfredor 02:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree. --Ermell 07:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality and not very blurry. -- Ikan Kekek 09:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A bit blurry but also composition; the left crop is cutting part of the excavator. --Peulle 01:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Brescia_Nord_e_Monte_Guglielmo_dai_Ronchi.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View of Brescia and the Mount Guglielmo. --Moroder 22:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose As per other version comments: improper crop of top right corner, black editor background is visible; tree at foreground covers significant part of the main subject. Sorry. --LexKurochkin 15:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Done I fixed the black upper left right. I don't seee anything wrong with the tree; btw its winter and fortunately it doesn't have the foliage and it is part of the landscape --Moroder 17:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support You're objecting to some foliage in a 10,932 × 4,461 pixel photo? And the problem with the upper right corner is? -- Ikan Kekek 12:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment Thanks Ikan. The problem was with the upper right corner, which i fixed --Moroder 12:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Oh, I see the problem in the original version. -- Ikan Kekek 13:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support As the main problem is removed, I support the nomination. Please, do not count my objection. --LexKurochkin 14:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 00:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Zygaena_transalpina_on_Knautia_dipsacifolia_(2).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Zygaena transalpina on Knautia dipsacifolia in St-Jean-d'Aulps, Haute-Savoie, France. --Tournasol7 07:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Insect not in focus --Charlesjsharp 18:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Commonists 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charlesjsharp. --Fischer.H 10:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Christian Ferrer 09:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles.--Ermell 08:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days

File:Dragonfly_in_autumn_._Cozachyi_island,_Kyiv.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Dragonfly in autumn . Cozachyi island, Kyiv --Ввласенко 07:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Quality is good but the id is too generic --Poco a poco 07:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment There are many similar types, maybe Sympetrum vulgatum. But I think I'll make a mistake when choosing -- Ввласенко 09:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   DoneI indicated the species in the description and category -- Ввласенко 08:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not sympetrum vulgatum --Charlesjsharp 15:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I hope colleagues can help find the correct definition of the species. -- Ввласенко 07:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fischer.H 10:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support good quality --Geoprofi Lars 13:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Any ambiguities about the motif must be clarified prior to nomination. In the case of a QI, the motif and description must fit together without a doubt. I don't know anything about such insects.--Milseburg 15:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Question Why would it be impossible to clarify them during the nomination? Isn't the whole purpose of the give and take at QIC for people to be able to edit the file and its categories and description in suitable ways? I think if the species were specified while the nomination was at CR, it would pass. We've seen that happen before, and not allowing it would be silly when people are allowed to renominate photos after making changes. -- Ikan Kekek 12:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that clarification of categories, label, etc is part of the give and take during the review process, need not lead to rejection. Similar to improvements in PC, CA, etc that are often done during review. --Tagooty 13:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. --Kallerna 10:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose None of the wings are in focus. Comparing to 22 QI in Category:Sympetrum vulgatum, this image does not measure up to QI standards. --Tagooty 13:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Tesla Delacroix 20:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 09:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)