Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 30 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Still_life_with_a_plate_of_onions_-_Vincent_Van_Gogh.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Still life with a plate of onions - Vincent Van Gogh --GoldenArtists 09:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose picture has been cropped --Charlesjsharp 09:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
A centimetre or less was cut out for the shadow, thank you.--GoldenArtists 13:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not OK. -- Ikan Kekek 21:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 06:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Passer_montanus_(Brunei)_2023_03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Passer montanus in Brunei. --Pangalau 15:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Oppose Nice, but clearly below the 2 Megapixel minimum size. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    *  Support. The image is obviously a section and is therefore below the normally required number of pixels. I see it was taken at 500mm focal length, probably from a long distance. In my opinion it worked out very well. That's why I ask for discussion. -- Spurzem 19:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
      Comment You have been here long enough to know perfectly well that the minimum of 2 MP is a hard rule which is enforced without any exceptions or excuses. This image is simply not eligible for QI, even though it is IMO still the best one among this series of bird images. I revert this to "Decline", which will be my last action here about this image. If you still wish to annoy essentially everyone by sending this to CR without any valid reason, I won't stand in your way any more. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    I am sorry for that. I was much too rude. I still believe that this does not qualify as an exception to the 2MP rule, which is considered to be a hard limit by the vast majority of users here (except for vector graphics, of course). But let's give it a try and move it to CR as you wish, even if I might annoy some people with this action. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is not only the resolution but technical aspects as well(e.g. colour noise)which are below QI requirements from my point of view --Virtual-Pano (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Very nice lighting, but   Oppose per Virtual-Pano. --Smial 10:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too small. Per se ineligible. -- Ikan Kekek 21:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose +1. --Peulle 06:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --C messier 15:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Todiramphus_chloris_(Brunei)_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Todiramphus chloris in Brunei. --Pangalau 15:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Oppose Exremely unsharp and lacking detail --20 upper 18:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support. Where is the image extremely blurry? It's obviously a cropped image to show the bird large, and as a result the pixel count is low. I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 18:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Borderline quality. Charlesjsharp 08:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  • weak   Oppose sharpness is just a tad below required level imho --Virtual-Pano 20:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Above the line to me. -- Ikan Kekek 21:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I defer to Charles.--Peulle 06:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 15:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

File:GAZ-3110_cherry_colored_(front_view)-cropped.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination GAZ-3110 "Volga" --Kirill Borisenko 13:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
    It is nice, but can you crop out gray car from the right to make photo about main subject? --Nino Verde 10:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
      Done I did recomended crop. --Kirill Borisenko 19:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. --Nino Verde 10:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose. Please no offense, but we shouldn't declare a photo a quality image just out of kindness. The image here is overexposed and distorted. In addition, the deleted license plate does not look good. Please discuss whether the photo is still good. -- Spurzem 12:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
      Comment Sorry, did you read EXIF data? What overexposure on 40 ISO you talking about? Welcome to Russian autumn. --Kirill Borisenko 18:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose Distortion.--Peulle 06:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
      Comment It taked on 64MPx. Tell please a point, where you see distortion. --Kirill Borisenko 15:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The sides are leaning out on top. --Peulle 06:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 06:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)