Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 03 2017

Consensual review edit

File:Tumbling flower beetle 5057.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Glipa sp --Vengolis 03:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not sharp enough. Charlesjsharp 09:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles.--Peulle 06:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. The amount of useful detail is too small for QI. Guanaco 08:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 15:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Sarcophagidae 6355.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sarcophaga.Sarcophagidae --Vengolis 03:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose blown details Charlesjsharp 09:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I could really take or leave a lot of the photos you're objecting to, but in this case, declining it means really super-high standards to me. The clarity is quite good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 16:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It is my opinion that submitting distant (i.e. uncropped) insects that would otherwise be very small files (and with no post-processing to improve the images' quality) does not meet acceptable QI standards. Charlesjsharp 16:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. I think this one is close enough, unlike some others. Vengolis, would you be able to geolocate the file? Guanaco (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Guanaco Geocoded.Thank you---Vengolis 15:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 15:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Saint-Pierre-es-Liens Church 03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Saint-Pierre-es-Liens Church in Milhars, Tarn, France. --Tournasol7 07:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Verticals are well done, but tower is deformed. The top is wider than the bottom --Michielverbeek 06:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too strong distorted. --Ralf Roletschek 07:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 15:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Abandoned gold mine near Larder Lake, Ontario, Canada.jpg edit

 

  Comment - I appreciate your review. I agree that it could be bigger and more detailed, but it's very pretty and I'd like a discussion on whether it's good enough for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 08:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment So let's discuss. But in this case I'll more information. IMO it looks like a snapshot with a smartphone because of the reduced details. May be there are JPEG artifacts too, look at the branches at the top. If you look to the rocks and the water, the image needs a perspective correction. The composition is very good, I like it. --XRay 09:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment I can't answer these questions. Magnolia677, would you like to address this? -- Ikan Kekek 10:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I withdraw my nomination; you all are probably right. As XRay said, good composition (which is why I like it), but problematic execution. -- Ikan Kekek 06:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --PumpkinSky 23:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]