Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 21 2018

Consensual review edit

File:Girl_in_Mara_village,_Morena_district.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Girls in Mara village, Morena district, M.P., India. --Yann 12:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose unsharp --Christian Ferrer 18:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Could I have a second opinion please? --Yann 19:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I've to agree with Christian, it isn't really sharp Poco a poco 19:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree. What happened with these? Shutter speed 160 is usually enough for me, so why didn't it work here? Was the lighting perhaps such that the ISO should have been higher and the shutter speed even higher? Or is it the f-stop? --Peulle 08:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I must agree. Very nice picture but it's blurred and not sharp enough. Clearly not a QI. --Halavar 12:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 06:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

File:IDF-M270-MLRS--ZE-white.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination IDF M270 MLRS "Menatetz". --MathKnight 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Derivative work of the image on the right, and therefore not an original QI --Poco a poco 18:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment If the source is QI, this one could be as well. --Yann 12:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    Yann: are you suggesting that out of an image I could generate an unlimited amount of QIs for each derivative work?, sorry, I strongly disagree. Poco a poco 17:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I believe the point is moot; this is a Flickr image and as such it is not eligible for QI, isn't that right?--Peulle 08:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Per se ineligible per Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek 07:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - per others -- DerFussi 18:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Basotxerri 20:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Darshan_Singh_from_village_Akbarpur_Afghana.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Darshan Singh from village Akbarpur Afghana --Satdeep Gill 16:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I strongly disagree: face is absolutely out of focus. --Basotxerri 20:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Certainly good enough for QI. You can't barely see the difference of focus, even at 6 Mpx. Yann 05:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Slight back focus, so in full resolution the image is not perfect. But per Yann: Up to 6 Mpx and more sharp enough. Very nice lighting and composition, so weak   Support. --Smial 09:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC) If the uploader had resized the image to about 6 MPixels, nobody would have noticed the problem - and 6 Mpixels are always good enough for QI. Resizing images taken under difficult circumstances is imo allowed.
  •   Oppose Regardless of size, this image is out of focus. Not just unsharp as a result of some technical issues, but our of focus.--Peulle 09:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Peulle: This is a nonsense review, and it incites people to downsize the pictures. :( Yann 12:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  Comment You're wrong. On both counts.--Peulle 23:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 20:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Sharp enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 20:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The face is out of focus as the focus is on the neck, but we don't have any objective standard on what represents QI. As a photo, this is so much better than many images promoted here and the lack of downsizing is a plus. Charles (talk)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Basotxerri 16:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)