Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 13 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Close_wing_moisture_sucking_of_Loxura_atymnus_(Stoll,_1780)_-_Yamfly_WLB.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Close wing moisture sucking of Loxura atymnus (Stoll, 1780) - Yamfly WLB --Anitava Roy 18:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
    I'm not sure if the blur at the bottom is too distracting. --Ktkvtsh 18:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose Too much. Legs are cut off. --Vasmar1 19:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per User:Vasmar1. Also lack of detail on the butterfly wings. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 10:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Saarburg,_St.-Laurentius-Kirche,_St._Laurentius_--_2023_--_8152.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Statue of St. Laurentius at St Laurentius Church in Saarburg, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany --XRay 04:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Oppose slightly out of focus, sorry --Virtual-Pano 09:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
    May be sharpness could be better, but IMO good enough for QI (with respect to the resolution). --XRay 10:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  Comment This wall provides an unfavorable background for the statue. In addition, the upper part of the wall is overexposed. -- Spurzem 14:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The background may be inappropriate, but unfortunately can not be changed. By the way, a lighter joint material was used in the upper area. --XRay 04:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Virtual-Pano. The issue to me is not the overall size of the photo but the details on the statue. The statue is not huge at the photo's full size. -- Ikan Kekek 18:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Colour saturation probably somewhat high, but by far sharp enough for an A4 size print. --Smial 18:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 10:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Rignano_sull'Arno_-_Chiesa_di_San_Pietro_in_Perticaia_-_2023-09-05_13-27-07_002.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Church of San Pietro in Perticaia -Rignano sull’Arno. --Anna.Massini 12:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Grunpfnul 13:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose To me it looks that this one is over edited, and no detail enough to be QI. --Liridon 10:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Appears oversaturated and oversharpened. --Smial 11:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Smial and Liridon --Jakubhal 03:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 00:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 10:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Marchande_d'oeufs_qui_fait_des_boites_d'oeufs.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Egg merchant who makes egg cartons. --Touam 20:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Comment Incorrect Interlanguage-Links Saint-Étienne and photograph of identifiable people {{Personality rights}}, fixable? --F. Riedelio 06:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Done OK for Personality rights. --Touam 19:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 07:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Posterisation in the shadows noticable --Grunpfnul 16:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Fix. I found one pro, and one contra vote, this means usually discuss, not "promote" --Smial 16:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Where are you seeing the posterization? I'd like you to tell me, so I can look for it more, but so far,   Support, good quality depiction of the subject. -- Ikan Kekek 08:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Must agree to Grunpfnul. Large parts of the skin don't look healthy. --Smial 14:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hi, I've done some modifications, but I don't understand where are the posterizations. Perhaps best like that ? And thank you for your votes. --Touam 20:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 10:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

File:O&K_26621.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Heimbuchenthal, Orenstein & Koppel type MB 9 N, year of construction 1967, No 26621 --KaiBorgeest 19:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 20:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blown sky. Sorry. --Ermell 21:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose overexposed
Above vote stricken as unsigned.--Peulle 10:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose overexposed - I forgot the signature yesterday, sorry --Virtual-Pano 11:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't find the uniform gray sky distracting in this case. --Smial 11:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Shows the subject well and is pleasing to the eye. --Ktkvtsh 18:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed with blown sky. Sorry, but I crave some consistency on this page. Many pictures with similar flaws had been rejected before. --Jakubhal 17:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 10:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)