Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 09 2017

Consensual review edit

File:Jaguar E-Type, Serie II (2017-07-05 Sp).JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Jaguar E-Type Series II as it was built from 1968 to 1971 -- Spurzem 12:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry, but that's not very sharp. The left side of the front especially seems out of focus. --Peulle 13:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    @Peulle: Thank you very, very much! But now it is enough! I regret to have presented this and the image beside. -- Spurzem 14:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
      Comment If you disagree with a review, please take the image to CR for further opinions.--Peulle 14:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    I know who will decline too but I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 18:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    No problem. We have a system here as you know: the reviews are just one person's opinion. Other people may have different opinions. We will see in CR. :)--Peulle 18:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks OK to me. --Palauenc05 21:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Palauenc05. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Famberhorst 07:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support-- PumpkinSky 19:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • See? The system works. :) --Peulle 20:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 20:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

File:MG TD, Bj. 1950, hinten (2017-07-01 Sp).JPG edit

 

  • Nomination One of the famous British sports cars: MG TD from 1950 at “Europa Klassik” in Andernach -- Spurzem 11:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Also not very sharp; it's a still-standing object and should be in good focus. --Peulle 13:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    Laughable! -- Spurzem 14:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC) I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 18:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks sharp enough to me. --Palauenc05 21:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Palauenc05. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Famberhorst 07:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 11:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Porsche_Diesel_und_International_IHC_826_2016-07-17_13-59-20.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Porsche-Diesel Junior 108 and International IHC 826. The Porsche is not a toy! --Berthold Werner 07:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks like a dirty lens, somehow smudgy. --Tsungam 13:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me for I see no dirt. Interesting composition -- Spurzem 21:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp.--Peulle 13:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Peulle: May it be that you have problems with your eyes? Or what is the reason for your vote? Spurzem 14:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Spurzem: Dear Spurzem, please calm down. Peulle simply has given his opinion in good faith and he's trying to do a good job here. --Basotxerri 20:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Basotxerri: I try to believe it. ;-) -- Spurzem 21:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  Comment There is nothing wrong with my eyes. Look at the flowers on the front of that Porsche. You call that sharp? I don't. Look at the "junior" logo next to the "Porsche Diesel" logo. Is that sharp? It's not. It's out of focus. The whole vehicle is. I can't see any reason why this tractor - which is standing still with good light available - should not be sharper. Hence my oppose vote. Now if other people think the sharpness is good enough and outvote me in a democratic fashion to have the image promoted anyway, I have no problem with that.--Peulle 20:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough for QI. --Palauenc05 22:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Palauenc05. -- Johann Jaritz 07:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment See, @Spurzem: ? The system works. :) --Peulle (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 11:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion {{{2}}}

File:Little_egret_(Egretta_garzetta)_from_Karur_District_JEG8528.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Little egret hunting in Karur: moment of prey capture. By User:PJeganathan --Shankar Raman 14:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality considering the distance. --Peulle 15:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not for me. Charlesjsharp 16:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  Comment You think the head is not sharp enough? I noticed that too but forgave it since the distance to the subject is quite high.--Peulle 18:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A standard for sharpness would help (specifically for birds, because they are difficult to get close to) - This was recently rejected as not sufficiently sharp:   - So we have a great action shot, but not sharp enough for QI. --Alandmanson 09:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree, but if we could get a very clear and objective sharpness standard, bots could do this. In the end, this is about our personal opinions, so reaching a 100 % consensus is difficult. I would say that the image of the Buff-streaked chat is of a bird sitting still, whereas the egret here is moving around. That could be a difference in people's evaluations.--Peulle 14:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 22:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I consider it reasonably sharp personally. More than willing to support. Cyali 00:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, and I would have supported the other one, too. Not for FP, but for QI. I don't think images have to be optimally focused throughout to be of quality. -- Ikan Kekek 09:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 12:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)