Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 01 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Verruigd_biotoop._Locatie,_Stuttebosch_in_de_lendevallei._27-08-2020._(actm.)_06.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Overgrown fairly wet habitat. Location, Stuttebosch in the lime valley. Friesland province. --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality --Llez 06:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose wb off, tilted. --Kallerna 18:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me. -- Johann Jaritz 05:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good and believable to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - but I recommend to adjust WB (too warm) (and a little bit sharpness). --XRay 09:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 16:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 13:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Billings_Estate,_Ottawa_(20170819_100819).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bilingual description board at Billings Estate, Ottawa --MB-one 12:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Mobile-phone shot of a description board? Please select the photos you nominate more carefully. The photo is also tilted and framing in unfortunate. --Kallerna 12:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done fixed tilt and new crop --MB-one 23:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I am wondering about the subject as well. If this can be QI, we could start taking pictures of every single page of a public book, or of a computer display in a museum showing text, etc. ... . --Augustgeyler 06:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Are you wondering about copyright status, Augustgeyler? --Peulle 07:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment no, about sense... --Augustgeyler 15:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, you can take such pictures, and they might even be useful. Remember, Wikipedia uses Commons photos quite extensively. -- Ikan Kekek 10:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality - a contemporary image of an historic plaque (which could one day be destroyed or removed) imho possibly has more relevance here than other photos that have passed QI but have little apparent historic, information or artistic value --SM1 (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Thank you, SM1. That's the reason I was looking for. So I understand the value of that image. But I have to oppose. The lower background is much sharper than the main object. The level of detail is low. This here is not a quality reproduction of that plaque. --Augustgeyler 10:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The plaque is very distorted and the color seems not true. -- Spurzem 20:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It may be useful to take such a picture of an information board, especialy in connection with the object it describes. But is this one a quality image? Definitely not! It's just a poor mobile phone shot. IMO it's quite daring to nominate such a picture as QI. --Palauenc05 07:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Goéland_argenté_(Larus_argentatus)_(33).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Herring gull (Larus argentatus) in Île-de-Sein (Finistère, France). --Gzen92 08:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Peulle 08:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tighter crop needed. --Kallerna 12:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Crop fine for me. I don't see a good reason why the environment of the bird should be removed --PantheraLeo1359531 16:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 10:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sharp bird. But the composition is poor. I'd suggest to crop 30 % of the right part of that image. --Augustgeyler 10:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Johann Jaritz 04:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 13:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Scheepswrak_van_de_Queen_Anne._31-08-2020._(actm.)_03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Digging part of the frames of the Queen Anne in the Schoterveld nature reserve near Bant in Flevoland. --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 04:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose wb off --Kallerna 17:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 10:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment there is also very similar photo already QI. Why promote both? --Kallerna 08:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Because QI is not VI or FP. ;-) --XRay 08:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a need for several so similar QIs? We should not encourage nominating duplicates. --Kallerna 11:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose A very good composition showing a dramatic scenery. But the level of detail is a little low and I am missing sharpness, especially in the foreground. --Augustgeyler 08:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   CommentAgnes, I'm very clearly seeing magenta CA on the upper reaches of the two pieces of wood furthest to the left. Please fix that. After that's fixed, this will be a QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 10:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done. Ca’s removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek 10:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Johann Jaritz 04:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 10:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)