Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 23 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Biking_in_Juan_Griego_Bay,_Margarita_Island.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Biking in Juan Griego Bay --Wilfredor 20:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality, but I would remove those leaves in left top corner --Michielverbeek 22:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree for now. Could you please fix the horizon? The chain looks quite odd --Podzemnik 00:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed, posterization. --Smial (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question - I'm not seeing the posterization. Where is it? -- Ikan Kekek 19:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Well visible at the tires, also at the shoes and some other shady areas. --Carschten 19:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial --Carschten 19:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 20:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Shwedagon_Zedi_Daw_Yangon_5.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Shwedagon pagoda, Yangon. --Kallerna 16:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Good one, but the plattform down disturbs the composition, I suggest a crop --PantheraLeo1359531 15:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment The platform is IMO important, would not like to crop it out. Let's discuss. --Kallerna 06:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Could a less tight crop help here showing the whole platform? --Milseburg 07:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Full   Support. Good sharpness, well handled difficult lighting situation. The platform belongs to the object. If cropped out, someone else would decline because of too tight crop. Only obvious issue: Not absolutely perfect symmetry. But this is QIC, not FPC. --Smial 13:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jakubhal 20:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Dimitris_Nikolaou_&_Adam_Hložek,_U21_CZE-GRE_2019-10-10.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Dimitris Nikolaou & Adam Hložek in an internatinoal association football match of European Under-21 Championship Qualifying Round between the Czech Republic and Greece, Městský stadion Karviná --T.Bednarz 13:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose One player cut in half while there is room on the right ... that's not a QI composition, sorry. Difficult shot, but still. --Peulle 16:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. Good quality and fine compo. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 21:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Too distracting. -- Ikan Kekek 09:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle and Ikan. Some good elements in this image but IMHO not QI. --GRDN711 01:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 14:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

File:OutDoor_2018,_Friedrichshafen_(1X7A9856).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mannquin in modern style loden jacket, OutDoor 2018 --MB-one 17:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose not a loden jacket --Charlesjsharp 17:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  Comment It's not a traditional style but certainly made out of loden cloth. --MB-one (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Image looks fine to me, but according to the manufacturer's website this appears to be a jacket with a pure cotton outer fabric (and a 100% polyester mesh lining), "which complements wonderfully with our loden clothing". No mention of wool being used in this model of garment, though it's possible that I've just found something which looks exactly alike but is from a different range. On balance, I suspect you ought to modify the description (and the categories) to remove the mention of loden. --Bobulous 19:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  Comment @Bobulous: according the the manufacturer: "Outer fabric: 100% pure tumbled new wool" & "made of German loden" ([1]) --MB-one (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  Support @MB-one: I was looking at the very similar Draufgänger product. But the garment in your photograph looks like a match for the Hellblau colour, and also has the manufacturer logo on the breast, as seen in the Deubelskerl product you link to, which does state Loden as its fabric. So disregard my earlier comment. With regard to the actual image: it's sharp at the point of focus, the depth of field is just about ideal, and the exposure is fine. I'd be tempted to crop away that fluffy hood at the extreme left edge of the image (which would also place the mannequin head closer to the third-way line), but it's not a showstopper. --Bobulous 19:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Café_sur_un_vol_Ethiopian_airlines.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Café et sucre sur un vol Ethiopian airlines. --Fawaz.tairou 20:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Peulle 20:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree - JPG artifacts, soft, nothing much in focus etc. --Podzemnik 05:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good enough as a picture of a cup of coffee, I think. -- Ikan Kekek 06:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not properly categorized. --Gyrostat 12:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment - You're right. I've temporarily withdrawn my supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek 23:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done - fixed the categories --Kritzolina 20:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Restored supporting vote, though I respect Smial's remarks and we'll see whether they win the day. -- Ikan Kekek 06:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment No problem with that. My oppose does not say it's a really bad image, only: it's in my opinion below current QIC standards. If you decide, it's good enough: Ok. I know that you never judge thoughtlessly. --Smial 21:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Thanks. I know that you don't, either. -- Ikan Kekek 10:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Random composition, wide angle perspective inappropriate, bad lighting. Sorry. --Smial 02:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose - I don't have a problem with the composition, but it seems strange to have the focus on the branding alone, far down the subject. Rhododendrites 22:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial and the image lacks value for QI. --GRDN711 01:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 14:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)