Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 14 2019

Consensual review edit

File:Münster,_Montgolfiade_(an_den_Aaseewiesen)_--_2019_--_9668_(crop,_bw).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Hot air balloons at the 49th Montgolfiade in Münster (1st race), North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 02:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose Sorry for my objection! The photo was ruined during post-production. The sky was heavily darkened, giving the balloons a white fringe of light that is not visible in the original image. This has nothing to do with photography. --Steindy 12:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose Derivative work of an image which is already QI, that disqualifies it Poco a poco 20:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose falsche SW-Simulation --Ralf Roletschek 10:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco.--Peulle 21:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your reviews. --XRay 05:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 23:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

File:2014_McLaren_P1_3.8.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 2014 McLaren P1 3.8 Taken at the Concours d'Elegance Hampton Court 2019 --Vauxford 14:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Do you know that QI works only when all users participate in the evaluation of photos? They nominate a lot of pictures, but have never done a review themselves. --Steindy 15:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Steindy How is that a reason to have it declined? To me, it looks perfectly fine and it the reason why I nominated it. --Vauxford 18:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  Comment @Vauxford: QI is a collaborative project that can only work if all users participate in it. You have given about 75 QIs and not a single review of another photo. If you refuse to review and rate the work of other users, then you are offside. Sorry! --Steindy 12:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Steindy and where does it say that? I looked to find anything related to what you said and found nothing. So just because I have quite a few QI nominated, I have to nominate other photos, is that why people like Poco and Xray promote other people photos? I thought that was just volunteering work because there very experienced photographers and was optional. --Vauxford 15:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support GQ --Palauenc05 20:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good Quality Chme82 19:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This image is a QI. Steindy was wrong to decline it on procedural grounds as there is no such requirement in the procedure. I will, however, agree that if you nominate lots of photos, it would be courteous to contribute to the project by reviewing as well. If a user nominates lots of his/her own photos but never reviews those of other users, one possible result may be that the reviewers no longer bother reviewing those photos.--Peulle 19:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am surprised every day anew, what is smashed here and which photos are rated as good quality. The picture presented here is too dark and therefore at this time no QI for me. Perhaps it can be improved. -- Spurzem 10:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    It's better now. Therefore contra removed. But I can not say that it is a QI. -- Spurzem 18:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Spurzem   Done I loosen the crop and made it slightly brighter, hows that? --Vauxford 15:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark, too tight crop, disturbing background. -- Smial 11:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 23:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Lesser_purple_emperor_(Apatura_ilia_ilia_f._clytie).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lesser purple emperor (Apatura ilia ilia f. clytie) --Charlesjsharp 08:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Oppose Too blurry. Sorry. --Ermell 12:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. --Chenspec 19:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose blurred. Seven Pandas 20:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 23:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Southern_Yellow-Billed_Hornbill_Beak_2019-07-25.jpg edit

 

Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 23:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)