Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 01 2022

Consensual review edit

File:Flor_de_Orquidea.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Epidendrum secundum, orchid flower that has the shape of a crucifix. --Cbrescia 14:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Sorry! Nothing sharp. --Steindy 20:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support. Sharp enough for me, perhaps due to my glasses. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 21:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm not sure. How big is each flower? Also, the sky seems too dark in places. It was 10:30 on May 6. -- Ikan Kekek 06:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Definitely no QI, upscaled, overprocessed, lacking sharpness --Poco a poco 11:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 18:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Tusker_Elephant_Bath2_Nagarhole_Kabini_Apr22_D72_23843.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Tusker sprays self in Kabini (2 of 3). Elephas maximus indicus, Nagarhole Nat'l Park, Karnataka, --Tagooty 03:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose lovely tusks, but blurred image --Charlesjsharp 09:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too small, speedy decline. -- Ikan Kekek 06:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Charlesjsharp and Ikan Kekek: Sorry, I uploaded a lowres file by mistake. Please review the new hires image. --Tagooty 08:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is motion blur, agree with Charles here --Poco a poco 11:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 18:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Пионы_в_Кусково_3.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Paeonia officinalis, Кусково --Ulaisaeva 06:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. Crop could be better. --Ermell 07:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I disagree, the quality is just ok, but the crop isn't --Poco a poco 08:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco.--Peulle 13:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 18:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Dumbarton_Rail_Bridge_2021_redux.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination: I've never nominated an image at QI before, so please excuse me if this is badly formatted. This is a photo I took last year, which I think is quite good, of the Dumbarton Rail Bridge. --JPxG 02:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Review I think quality is ok, but the file description should be more serious and informative. --Milseburg 15:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    Milseburg -- the description of the file has been updated, want to take another look? --JPxG 02:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "Trains used to live, laugh, and love here. Now they don't" sounds funny. --Milseburg 19:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Milseburg: Fixed. --JPxG 04:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It would be more interesting as a horisontal banner 1:3, IMO. Not sharp enough for QI. Alexander Novikov 21:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agreed that it's not sharp enough for QI, but I like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek 23:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Yes, somewhat soft, but it is good enough for a printout in A4 size. --Smial 10:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support per Smial. --GRDN711 14:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg 10:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting and nice but too soft, no QI to me with lack of sharpness Poco a poco 08:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@Robert Flogaus-Faust: I see two non-nominator supports. Does one of them not count? JPxG 19:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
My count was from June 20. Now I can see two supporting votes and changed it. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 18:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)