Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 09 2019

Consensual review edit

File:Jungle_myna_(Acridotheres_fuscus)_35.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Jungle myna (Acridotheres fuscus). --Nirmal Dulal 06:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Syed07 06:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice photo, but per se ineligible because it's below the minimum size of 2MP. Syed07, please rescind your supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek 07:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan Kekek --MB-one 08:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image is ineligible.   Question Point of order: are such cases eligible for CR discussion or shall we simply decline it?--Peulle 07:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It could be “speedy declined” IMO. --MB-one 11:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   Image is ineligible. --Peulle 06:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Wolfgang_Duerheimer,_IAA_2017,_Frankfurt_(1Y7A2140).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Wolfgang Dürheimer at IAA 2017 --MB-one 00:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Is it scaled down ? I do not have a problem with scaling down but looks like many other users do have problem with it --Eatcha 10:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a crop from a much wider images --MB-one 10:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Well then it's Good quality --Eatcha 14:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't know, it's not very sharp for such a low resolution portrait. Possibly too much luminance as the details are washed out --Podzemnik 22:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Yeah, not great, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 07:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Should be a bit sharper, yes.--Peulle 11:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment increased clarity, decreased dynamics a bit --MB-one 19:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Piccadilly_Circus.002_-_London.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Piccadilly Circus (London), England. --Drow male 08:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • OK if you get the CA removed.--Peulle 10:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done by --Eatcha 17:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 20:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Again, you washed out all the details. Please stop "improving" other users images --Podzemnik 22:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Not good quality, IMO; not sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 07:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Bryant_neighborhood,_Seattle,_2017-01-15_—_05.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The Bryant neighborhood of North Seattle on 40th Ave NE, at Bryant Neighborhood Playground -- By User:Ragesoss --Eatcha 08:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 20:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image is tilted, horizon is bouncing up and down... --Podzemnik 22:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Podzemnik. -- Ikan Kekek 07:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It looks like one of those mobile phone shots where you use the panorama function and move the camera by hand-held motion. In fact, I think it is. To get a good panorama shot like this, you have to either use a tripod or some good stitching software.--Peulle 11:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Charleroi_-_exposition_de_1911-_pavillon_électrique_-_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Charleroi (Belgium) - Electric pavilion built in 1911 for the Universal Exhibition --Jmh2o 19:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Can we get more space on the sides? The crop is very tight --Podzemnik 22:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but then, the road signs left from the building will be visible. --Jmh2o 10:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Other crop --Jmh2o 18:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hum alright, thanks, I'll let others to decide. Even though composition rules are not part of QI, I think here the compo is quite unfortunate --Podzemnik 00:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me --Eatcha 10:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree then. I think the composition is just too messy, maybe a different angle would help to get rid of distracting elements. --Podzemnik 22:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Bad left crop, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 07:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle 11:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I made a new crop of the picture. The main object is placed more top-left and the road signs are now invisible on the image. Better? --Jmh2o 14:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • OK. --Peulle 07:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 19:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Now IMO acceptable, even though still not optimal. Jmh2o, ping everyone who's voted or commented. -- Ikan Kekek 07:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment see my comment of the other picture from the same building above. But I think the composition is better here. --Jmh2o 10:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted