Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 25 2022

Consensual review edit

File:Kiwi (3 dioptries).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Kiwi (600 mm, 3 diopters) in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 09:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The left side is completely out of focus. --Imehling 07:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Imehling. Interesting picture, but not good. --Sebring12Hrs 09:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too low DOF, also CA. This is a case for a focus stack, I would say. --Smial 09:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Enough of it is sharp, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 06:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMO not sharp enough for QI, insufficient   DoF   --F. Riedelio 07:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 15:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Sri_Lankan_leopard_(Panthera_pardus_kotiya)_male.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sri Lankan leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya) male --Charlesjsharp 12:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The lighting is poor. The leopard is largely obscured by bushes. The CAT should be "Category:Panthera pardus in Yala National Park". This CAT has several better, high res images. --Tagooty 02:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The object is too dark and the background too bright   --F. Riedelio 07:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 10:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Citroen_C-Elysee,_Zadar_(P1080811).jpg edit

 

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Virtual-Pano 12:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

File:08277_-_Adult_Brown_booby_in_flight_-_(sula_leucogaster_leucogaster).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Adult brown booby in flight [sula leucogaster leucogaster] scanning the sea for preyI --Virtual-Pano 22:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Very noisy. --Junior Jumper 13:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  Comment Let's get other opinions --Virtual-Pano 13:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  Comment A good large image. Noisy, but I think that NR will correct the problem. --Tagooty 16:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  Done new version uploaded, thanks for pointing the flaw out --Virtual-Pano 20:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit soft but given the large resolution of the image, it is ok for QI. --Tagooty 02:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Overprocessed by denoising. --Smial 10:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  Comment completly reprocessed file uploaded --Virtual-Pano 13:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment The reprocessed file is good, I continue my support! --Tagooty 03:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The revision has not brought progress in sharpness, but at least this version looks harmoniously finished overall and has no more ugly artefacts. The quality is just about enough for a print up to A4 size, and since it is a nature photo, I am switching to a weak   Support --Smial 20:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose These kinds of photos are hard, but nothing is sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 05:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Improperly declined with a non-updated 2-2 vote, fixed by me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blurred, too low sharpness for QI   --F. Riedelio 07:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 09:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)