Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 13 2023

Consensual review edit

File:At_the_Intrepid_Museum_2023_120.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lockheed A-12 60-6925 at Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum --Mike Peel 20:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Mike1979 Russia 07:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cluttered background is a distraction as is the guy in red on the right edge and machine in yellow on the left edge. --GRDN711 12:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment The background is what it is - you wouldn't expect the photographer to raze Midtown Manhattan, would you? But I agree that the part of the man should probably be either included completely or neatly cropped out. We do have to recognize, though, that it is very difficult to get a completely satisfying crop when you are dealing with buildings and people at the same time. -- Ikan Kekek 17:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, good to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality after the edit --Jakubhal 04:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Ikan Kekek 06:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

File:GeWoSued,_Berlin_(DSC06478).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Cooperative apartment building in Berlin-Lankwitz --MB-one 17:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Perspective correction needed --Grunpfnul 06:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 20:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks OK, IMO. There's a very small darker (dust?) spot a bit to the left of and above the chimney. -- Ikan Kekek 17:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    •   Comment looks like a bird flying in the distance. --MB-one 09:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Then please keep it. -- Ikan Kekek 09:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support. Good image -- Spurzem 10:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support OK --Jakubhal 14:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Mike Peel 20:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Red-winged_blackbird_singing_(94019).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Red-winged blackbird in Colonel Samuel Smith Park --Rhododendrites 00:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. I didn't know they close their eyes when they sing. --Acroterion 01:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose processing - see leaves in front of chest --Charlesjsharp 09:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose by Charlesjsharp. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Don't have time now, but I may go back later to remove those little halos on the leaves. But that ruins the whole image sufficient to fail QIC? ... Rhododendrites 14:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
      Neutral I thought that I could see some editing artifacts near the claws, but I am not sure any more. The leaves do look partially overexposed, though, presumably because the contrast to the black bird feathers was so high. Anyway, I removed my vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support It's acceptable. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 12:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Mike Peel 19:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Parque_infantil_-_A740031.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Playground. --Rjcastillo 03:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Description is very short and categorization should be better. --XRay 03:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 04:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @Tournasol7: Please do not overwrite a review with a pro vote if the issues isn't done. --XRay 04:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorry, XRay... --Tournasol7 04:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • No problem. :-) IMO there are too much pictures with a very short description and unsufficient categorization. --XRay 11:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I totally agree. The geocoordinates are greatly appreciated, but the description should be "Playground in [Name of Town]." I would support the photo if the name of the town is added and the categories are changed accordingly. -- Ikan Kekek 07:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good image. But I have to oppose as long as there is no proper description about the playground and its location. --Augustgeyler 08:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good now. --Augustgeyler 07:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Someone added a category and there is a geocoded location. Good quality IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support per others, though I totally agree with August that the file description lines should have some location information in them. -- Ikan Kekek 23:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Done Thanks, Improved description and categorization. --Rjcastillo 06:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support With description and categorization IMO OK. --XRay 07:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Mariame_Touré_Miss_Guinée_2019.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Mariame Touré Miss Guinée 2019.--Aboubacarkhoraa 22:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Tagooty 01:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor crops, distracting striped purple shirt. --SHB2000 12:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMO crop is acceptable. Sharpness should be better. Categories for the location are missing, at least one of the category (wikimedia) should be hidden. EXIF data would be nice. --XRay 06:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
    • J'ai puis ajouter l'emplacement de la prise de l'image, mais le reste des informations que tu demande, je connais pas comment faire. --Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
    • English translation: I've been able to add the location where the image was taken, but I don't know how to do the rest of the information you're asking for. --XRay 04:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
      • Minor sharpness can be improved by a software, other an image should be taken sharp. (Here: sharp eyes). For hidden categories: COM:CAT --XRay 04:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
    • @Aboubacarkhoraa: Please add a category where the photo is taken. IMO this is enough for a weak pro. --XRay 06:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's OK for the QI --Jakubhal 12:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per SHB2000 --Sandro Halank 11:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good image, good composition -- Spurzem 12:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I don't like the crop of hair, but the face is sharp enough and shown with good level of detail. There is camera location and we see several relevant categories. --LexKurochkin 08:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 12:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very unfortunate lighting. Nice as a random snapshot, and probably useful, but it is by no means a quality portrait photo. --Smial 11:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others, bad crop, and distracting lights on the crown. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 22:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)