Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 06 2018

Consensual review edit

File:Main_en_medis.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination main en medisI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --BenOthmanZied 16:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Med mhamdi 15:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Confused composition, the background clashes with the object in the f/g and supporter lacks eligibilityt o review. --Rodhullandemu 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Rodhullandemu. --Basotxerri 07:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --GPSLeo 14:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image itself isn't too bad, but there's no suitable category.--Peulle 15:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No QI for me. --Fischer.H 17:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Rod, especially his first point. --GerifalteDelSabana 07:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose →   Declined   --Basotxerri 15:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Flower_vibes.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination lovely flowerI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Safsoufa.s 16:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Med mhamdi 15:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crpped too tighly; we need to focus on the stamen OR see the whole flower and supporter lacks eligibility to review. --Rodhullandemu 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tight crop. --Basotxerri 08:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Rodhullandemu--Peulle 15:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case 21:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Could have been a good shot, but per others. --GerifalteDelSabana 06:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Basotxerri 15:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Amandier_tamzert.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination La saison de la fleuraison des amandiers au sud tunisienI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Mahres 15:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support quality. --Med mhamdi 15:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Supporter lacks eligibility to review --Rodhullandemu 17:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Okay image, but flower should be identified. Hiàn 19:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support English description would be nice. --GPSLeo 14:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for a QI, I want the species in category.--Peulle 15:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Rod and Hian. --GerifalteDelSabana 06:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Basotxerri 15:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Pitcha.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination no cat no lifeI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Omar challouf 15:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Med mhamdi 15:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nowhere near sharp enough at 100% and don't think it should have a watermark. Also, supporter lacks eligibility to review. --Rodhullandemu 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Watermark removed, but sharpening has posterized the image. In any case, there's too much darkness to make this an appealing image.Rodhullandemu 06:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Unsharp, etc. -- Ikan Kekek 07:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality is far below the requested level here -- Basile Morin 02:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blurred and artifacts. --GPSLeo 14:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not even close.--Peulle 14:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. -- GerifalteDelSabana 01:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Impressing lighting and composition, but nothing sharp, and strong noise. --Smial 10:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose →   Declined   --Basotxerri 15:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Sousse-360---25-03-2017.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sousse city center --Khwissem 16:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose null --Med mhamdi 15:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Med mhamdi 15:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality; is this a stitched image? But even if it's a swept pano, it suffers from perspective distortion, and supporter lacks eligibility to review. --Rodhullandemu 17:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective, unsharp, CAs, oversaturated, compression artifacts. --Basotxerri 11:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Compression or ISO artifacts. --GPSLeo 14:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, especially Basotxerri. --GerifalteDelSabana 06:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose →   Declined   --Basotxerri 15:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Port_of_Sousse.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination sousse port by nightI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Med mhamdi 15:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Med mhamdi 15:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nowhere near sharp enough at full resolution and supporter lacks eligibility to review. --Rodhullandemu 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC))
  •   Oppose Blurred -- George Chernilevsky 19:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others and: you cannot review your own work. --Basotxerri 20:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --GPSLeo 14:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No.--Peulle 14:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --GerifalteDelSabana 06:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose →   Declined   --Basotxerri 15:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Passer_montanus_at_KL_(2).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Two Eurasian tree sparrows (Passer montanus). --GerifalteDelSabana 06:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Excellent. This one is a possible FP, IMO. Someone might object to what's in the upper left corner, I guess, but excellent, cute closeup of the two sparrows. -- Ikan Kekek 07:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Strong posterization, blurred legs, some detail are lost --George Chernilevsky 18:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The issue has been addressed at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Passer montanus at KL (2).jpg. GerifalteDelSabana 11:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Sharpness and DOF not absolutely perfect, but in opposition to the image of the dove (below) I can not see disturbing overprocessing, and the image appears not to be scaled down. I wouldn't have cropped as tight, but that's matter of taste, no reason to decline. Very good lighting, and still acceptable composition. This is not an "easy-to-take-image". --Smial 13:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good image now that it has been fixed.--Peulle 15:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Great Moment. --GPSLeo 14:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Basile Morin 12:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Basotxerri 15:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)