Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 10 2019

Consensual review edit

File:VÅRIN.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Portrait of Norwegian musician Vårin Strand.--Peulle 20:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 08:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, see in VIC nomination, it may not to be a free photo --Ezarate 17:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • QIC procedural   Question: Should we not deal with these issues separately? If an image is not allowed on Commons, there will be a deletion request later, nullifying any promotions in the same process.--Peulle (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree --Ezarate 11:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion {{{2}}}

File:Flover12.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Река Турой на АлтаеЯ, владелец авторских прав на это произведение, добровольно публикую его на условиях следующей лицензии:Этот файл некатегоризирован.Пожалуйста, помогите улучшить этот файл, добавив его в одну или несколько категорий, чтобы он был связан с похожими файлами (как?), и его можно было проще найти.Пожалуйста, уведомите загрузившего с помощью --Alexandr frolov 07:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Needs categories --MB-one 11:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 18:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - COM:Overcat, and I also find the composition random, with very distracting portions of unsharp flowers in the near foreground. -- Ikan Kekek 06:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment These are seed heads (see en:Eriophorum), not flowers. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I just removed three misleading categories that are for flowers, not for seeds. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Great. But is "Unidentified Eriophorum" an OK category for a Quality Image? Are the species in this genus possible to differentiate by sight? -- Ikan Kekek 19:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Unfortunately the genus is not usually easy. Obtaining an accurate ID from a photo might be difficult in the European part of Russia, but this is from Asia. I have no idea how many similar species there are in the area. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - for me, shallow focus actually adds to the composition. --СССР 02:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The grey-blueish spot on the left is too disturbing. -- Herbert Ortner 19:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Rounded thing is disturbing, light not great, image name is unacceptable for QI. --Podzemnik 20:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose You will have to identify the species for the QI stamp --Poco a poco 06:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 06:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Costa_de_Trzęsacz,_Polonia,_2018-11-03,_DD_17.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Coast of Trzęsacz, Poland --Poco a poco 12:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Strange oval spot on the right? --Ermell 13:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done --Poco a poco 20:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Lens reflexion! --Der Angemeldete 18:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  Question What do you mean? you see a problem? can you add a note, please? --Poco a poco 18:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Well, that's basically...it. I found the lens reflexion. Could you please remove it? --Der Angemeldete 19:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Can you please add a note IN THE IMAGE (see the "Add note" button) to make clear where the problem it? --Poco a poco 19:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Sorry, I don't have this button. It's a big yellow circle in the sunlight on the left side of the photo in the darker wood section. You can't oversee this. --Der Angemeldete 14:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. Sorry forgot this one. --Ermell 21:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I marked the lens flare. --MB-one 10:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Overexposed + lens flares on the left. -- Ikan Kekek 06:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Inevitable overexposure by bright sun in the image conveniantly well handled, flare not really disturbant. Good sharpness and very nice composition. --Smial 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle 08:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment   New version uploaded with some cloning. Regarding the overexposure, well, that's the sun, and that's intentional, how could the sun not be overexposed? --Poco a poco 19:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment For me the light pays for the grain in the details of the shadow. But the CAs in the spur dike should be removed. --PtrQs 00:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Much better. Indeed, the sun itself has to be overexposed, but I wasn't complaining about that before. -- Ikan Kekek 10:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 15:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart 19:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 21:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)