Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 31 2021

Consensual review edit

File:QR_Code_to_acess_IIAB_device.svg edit

 

  • Nomination QR Code to acess IIAB deviceI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 16:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 20:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This seems worth talking about. Wouldn't literally any svg version of a QR code qualify for QI if we were to consider them? --Rhododendrites 11:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but this kind of images can be easily generated automatically in mass quantities. IMO it is not the suitable subject for QI --LexKurochkin 13:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment QI isn't about the quantity of work put in, but solely about the quality of the resulting work. --MB-one 10:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too simple for QI. Not enough threshold of originality --Milseburg 12:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --LexKurochkin 18:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Face_of_Horse_in_Manno_(Switzerland)_3.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Face of Horse in Manno (Switzerland) --Commonists 12:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 18:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not good quality for me; mostly unfocused, blurred, and poorly processed with sharpening artefacts everywhere. --A.Savin 19:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin.--Peulle 08:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't think it's that bad. We must take the big size of 43+ mp into consideration. At a "normal" size of let's say 10-12 mp those flaws wouldn't exist. --Palauenc05 08:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Which is quite a poor approach, since the quality of a picture should be judged based on how well it is taken and processed, not on its megapixel count. Technical aspects aside, that is unfair towards the majority of QIC participants, who are still using cameras with 24 mpix or less. --A.Savin 12:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Palauenc05 --MB-one 10:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin, sorry. --Lion-hearted85 13:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support The object (Face of Horse) is sharp enough for me. --F. Riedelio 13:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --LexKurochkin 18:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)