Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 25 2021

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review[edit]

File:Ford_Thunderbird_parked_on_University_Avenue_in_Toronto.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ford Thunderbird parked on University Avenue in Toronto --Maksimsokolov 03:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • IMO for this kind of image the verticals should be vertical. What do you think? --XRay 04:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion, convergent verticals are not such offending in this photo. I would try to make them vertical and keep them only if this does not ruin the composition. The subject is well contextualized, it is sharp (as well as the background), and quality is good. --Lion-hearted85 11:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Lion-hearted85: We should discuss the image. It is not polite to overrule a review with open issues. --XRay 04:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @XRay: You are right. I apologize for being too fervent. I did not intend to being rude or minimize your observations. I will change to /Discuss next time. --Lion-hearted85 21:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition is very good (the post at the middle is a little bit distracting), but the perspective with the buildings should be corrected. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the composition and it doesn't make a difference to me whether the verticals are straightened or not. --JiriMatejicek 16:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The bollard spoils the composition for me. --MB-one 17:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @XRay: @Sebring12Hrs: Thank you for the feedback. Perspective corrected --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 00:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Sebring12Hrs: @MB-one: The bollards removed. Thank you for your feedback --Maksim Sokolov 01:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good work, thank you ! --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK with the verticals. --XRay 04:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Maksimsokolov: Thank you for the excellent work in cloning out the bollards. I'd like to point out that, in its last revision (04:41 UTC), the photo has lost some detail (compare the tarmac on the bottom or the tree branches; less evident, compare the sharpness of the car plate, the reflections or the lines on the car), maybe due to some noise reduction. The photo looks very good, but you may want to bring it back. --Lion-hearted85 22:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Lion-hearted85: Thanks a lot for the feedback. At this point of photo editing, fixing one thing spoils another thing. But after close inspection, I agree with you and will try to make careful selective sharpening.--Maksimsokolov 22:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 00:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Apfelblüte_IMG_1279.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Apfelblüte an der Deutschen Weinstraße, Rheinland-Pfalz. --Fischer.H 12:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose blurred bee --Charlesjsharp 20:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review. --Fischer.H 08:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think photos must be with all parts in focus, nice composition --Moroder 04:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Moroder -- Johann Jaritz 04:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 00:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Linaria_cannabina.009_-_A_Coruña.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Linaria cannabina (Common linnet), next to Torre de Hércules. In A Coruña (Galicia, Spain). --Drow male 10:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Nice, but any chance to apply a better development, with less noise on background? --A.Savin 14:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose this camera is doing you no favours --Charlesjsharp 20:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the quality is acceptable --Christian Ferrer 21:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the bird is not sharp enough for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 23:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough to be printed to A4 paper size, or larger, even if slightly cropped. -- Smial 20:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Christian Ferrer--Moroder 20:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Moroder -- Johann Jaritz 03:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support considering the size, ok. --Kallerna 15:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Moroder -- Too enthusiastic :-) Johann Jaritz 04:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ivan Kekek. -Nefronus 21:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 00:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Larus_michahellis_in_Locarno.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Larus michahellis --Commonists 07:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose CA around body --Charlesjsharp 10:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 10:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Charlesjsharp, but it could perhaps be removed? --Nefronus 11:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    •  Question Better? Thanks --Commonists 12:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
      •  Comment better but still there --Charlesjsharp 15:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
        •  Question Now? Thanks --Commonists 18:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality --Moroder 03:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for QI. --Tagooty 09:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charlesjsharp. Plus overexposed neck. --A.Savin 12:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me.--Ermell 19:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Moroder -- Johann Jaritz 04:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 00:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)