Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 23 2018

Consensual review edit

File:Squirrel_eating_nuts.png edit

 

  • Nomination A red squirrel eating nuts. --JKorpimies 14:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Amazing image but sorry it is overexposed --Christian Ferrer 16:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I did not visit this page since several days. I cancel my oppose, thanks you JKorpimies --Christian Ferrer 17:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for your review! The overexposure should be mostly gone now. Thanks for pointing out the problem :).— Preceding unsigned comment added by JKorpimies (talk • contribs)
  •   Comment @JKorpimies You should set your nomination to /Discuss once you've fixed the issue that was pointed out or if you disagree with the reviewer. I think the image is of good quality and I would support but it needs better categorization: there is probably a better subcategory within Category:Helsinki and you have to identify the subject as precisely as possible. (also don't forget to sign) --Trougnouf 22:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   CommentThanks for you instructions. This is now in discuss and I put the picture in the category of Category:Sciurus vulgaris in Finland. And now I will not forget to sign :). --JKorpimies 6:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! There was no reason to remove Category:Helsinki as it's not a subcategory of Category:Sciurus vulgaris in Finland and vice versa, so I added Category:Nature of Helsinki.   Support --Trougnouf 09:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality, and i like this photo   Olivier LPB 08:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 05:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Basotxerri 12:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Christusstatue_Temple_Expiatori_del_Sagrat_Cor_Detail.jpg edit

 

  •   Question I don't understand the CC0 oppose --Trougnouf 22:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In my eyes a photo under CC0 can't be QI because the license isn't viral. --Ralf Roletschek 11:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do not see a problem with CC0 or GFDL, but with sharpness and DOF. Top of the statue's head and it's eyes are out of focus. The focal plane is somewhere between the chin and chest. --Smial 20:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Ps: Also burnt highlight at the forehead. Unsharpness visible at 100%, no need to enlarge to see that. --Smial 07:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - The license looks perfect - public domain, what could be better? If this were FPC, I'd object about the unsharpness of the nearest part of the torso, but this is QIC, and I'm surprised anyone doesn't think this is quite acceptable for QI. The head's sharpness is acceptable at 300% of my laptop screen. That's enough. -- Ikan Kekek 08:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. My non-review was focused on whether the focus on the bottom is support-worthy but I didn't even consider that the head itself is sharp enough at 200%. --Trougnouf 10:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The license is fine - Ralf must have misunderstood something. The focus is on the head so that's OK too.--Peulle 07:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The focus is not on the head, IMO, more "somewhere between the chin and the chest", as Smial says. The head is not blurry, but the sharpness could be better. Not bad enough to oppose, but it's not perfectly sharp at 100%, just 66% maybe (and enough considering the size of the picture). Apart from that, I really don't understand the CC0 problem. Not a valid reason to oppose IMO -- Basile Morin 11:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for the support and the constructive comments. --A,Ocram 15:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 14:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)