Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 22 2021

Consensual review edit

File:Sarny_na_polu_pod_Małoszycami,_Świętokrzyskie,_20210507_1737_6574.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Flock of roe deer near the village of Małoszyce, Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship, Poland --Jakubhal 16:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
    The WB should be corrected IMO --Ermell 21:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
      Done Ok, changed slightly. Is it good enough now? --Jakubhal 05:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    To me the deer still look purplish. If the WB is further improved, the image might be acceptable. --Nefronus 20:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. Should be more yellow IMO but ok. --Ermell 20:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Another fix uploaded. I've added a little more yellow. --Jakubhal 07:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Colors are unrealistic for me. The green of the grass is overexposed, or too much white or too much yellow ? Maybe overprocessed ? Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose overprocessed. Charlesjsharp 14:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Colors are unrealistic--Lmbuga 17:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Reverted to second version, maybe I should revert to first? I'm not convinced that I should have made any changes at all. The light is poor in this photo, but is there really a problem with WB? --Jakubhal 06:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 11:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Kürbisspinne_IMG_2198.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Kürbisspinne (Radnetzspinne) an einer Fliederbaumblüte, Deutsche Weinstrasse, Rheinland-Pfalz. --Fischer.H 17:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
    I think it's something between "not sharp enough" and "ok". Let's discuss. --Nefronus 09:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I changed my mind, too noisy and oversharpened, sorry. --Nefronus 06:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Question Why is this in Consensual Review? It appears as if you're having a discussion with yourself. -- Ikan Kekek 06:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment At first I though it is worth discussing, but then I leaned towards opossing the image. --Nefronus 06:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please have a look at Commons talk:Quality images candidates#Confusion over the use of "Discuss" again. Consensual review is a place to resolve disagreements about voting, not merely to have a discussion with the nominator or ask for a second opinion. This is explained in the introductory text before the nominations, but the very unfortunate status of "discuss" confuses people all the time and should be changed. -- Ikan Kekek 06:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 11:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Lille_maison_32_rue_gounod.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Eclectic house, Rue Gounod 32, Lille, France --Velvet 05:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry: Good picture but IMO the cars are very disturbing. --F. Riedelio 09:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment Thanks for your review. However, this building is in a street where parking is allowed on both sides... So, it is almost impossible to avoid a car in the frame (and therefore to get a QI of this building) --Velvet 16:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
      •   Comment @Velvet: My photos were also rejected because of the same problem. I then chose a time when no car parked in front of the building. --F. Riedelio 08:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
        •   Comment Finally, I would like to discuss that. Cars are part of our cities and I really don't find they are hiding too much of the building here --Velvet 22:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine to me. Ikan Kekek 06:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support There's way more building than cars on the picture, so it's ok to me --undefined 09:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment The vote is not counted as it lacks proper signature --LexKurochkin 11:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan Kekek. --Nefronus 09:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. And I think we need a discussion on people and cars on photos taken in cities --LexKurochkin 11:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good picture. It is realy difficult to have no cars on picture from buildings in cities. Specialy in smal streets. --Jmh2o 19:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support NIce and good picture --Lmbuga 16:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Ofcourse it is better without cars, but please not only the roof. Btw, IMO left crop is not well done --Michielverbeek 08:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 11:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Casa_della_Nave_Europa_(Pompeii)_-_Interior_2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Casa della Nave Europa (Pompeii) - Interior --Commonists 12:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Oppose Badly blurred on the left and at bottom. over-cat --A.Savin 12:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Other opinions,thanks --Commonists 12:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    Not even able to fix categorization? --A.Savin 12:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    Not much, can you give me a hand? --Commonists 12:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Really? Casa della Nave Europa (Pompeii) isn't obviously a subcategory of Pompeii to you? You might be able to find one or two other useful categories, but that example of overcategorization seems obvious to me. I think the photo is OK, but I'll wait for you to work on categories. -- Ikan Kekek 19:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek I never said that I didn't think it was a sub-category, actually, I also asked for help to understand better. Excuse me, but I haven't done this for a long time and I still have to get my head around it. Anyway better now? Thank you.--Commonists 22:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Still seems like overcategorization. I'm no expert on categories, either. It requires some searching. -- Ikan Kekek 23:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Each new edit just ends up in more OVERCAT, what a surprise. Hopeless case with this anonymous single-purpose account. --A.Savin 12:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Instead of vainly trying to insult people you could help them....--Commonists 13:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • After my attempts to help you wrt CA and sharpening artefacts were just a waste of time, and not even did you say thankyou, certainly no. --A.Savin 14:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I apologize if you were offended, it was definitely not my intention. I was probably distracted,though it doesn't excuse me. I am sincerely sorry.--Commonists 16:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Apologize for what? If you're disgracing yourself, that's no reason for me or anyone else to take offense. --A.Savin 00:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Disgracing? For two pictures? That's certainly not the dishonor.--Commonists 06:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for overcategorization. -- Ikan Kekek 20:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Overcat fixed. -- Ikan Kekek 08:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 11:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Fairy-ring_longhorn_beetle_(Pseudovadonia_livida)_Belgium.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Fairy-ring longhorn beetle (Pseudovadonia livida) --Charlesjsharp 09:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Fernando.tassone 10:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Most of the insect is not sharp. Sorry. --Ermell 22:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--Lmbuga 23:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough. --Smial 00:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Ermell. --Tagooty 14:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ermell. --Nefronus 19:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 11:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)