Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 17 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Lille_hellemmes_32_rue_jacquard.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Résidence Jacquard building, former Résidence les Célibataires at the Fives Cail factory, Rue Jacquard 32, Hellemmes-Lille, France --Velvet 05:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Good quality of the building detail, but the trees are too much obtrusive imo. Perhaps it could be taken from between the trees with a wider lens? --Nefronus 19:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support Good quality picture, the trees are just part of the street and let the building visible enough. --Selbymay 13:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support The trees don't disturb me, btw focal lens is 19 mm!. --Moroder 02:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
     Comment Selbymay, I added the count and counted your vote as support. --Nefronus 07:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support It's not disturbing for me. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Katzenminze_--_2021_--_9612.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Catnip on the roadside in Hausdülmen, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 05:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 05:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose In my opinion not very sharp, some of the inflorescences are motion-blurred, the composition looks chaotic to me, there are some white patches, sorry. --Nefronus 07:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
    IMO: With respect to the resolution is the sharpness (as top view) good enough. --XRay 12:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support enough for me--Commonists 19:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 12:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

File:NSG-00562.01_Auenwald_bei_Erlenfurt.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rothenbuch, "Auenwald bei Erlenfurt" --KaiBorgeest 21:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion * Oppose Poor detail, violet/pale green haze, sorry. --Nefronus 05:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
    *  Support I disagree Imo irrelevant. Nice composition and lights --Moroder 07:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Moroder. The colors look very natural to me. It's normal for shadow areas to look a bit bluish if the sunlit parts of the photo have correct white balance. I find it rather pleasing that no attempt has been made to "gimmick" colors or forcibly apply different white balance to different areas of the photo. The sharpness of the photo is quite adequate and sufficient for printing larger than A4. --Smial 11:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. Pretty and rather natural-looking. -- Ikan Kekek 22:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Well, I change my vote per others. --Nefronus 07:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 12:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

File:AUT_vs._TUR_2016-03-29_(077).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kevin Wimmer, footballplayer of Austria. --Steindy 13:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry, but the hand got in the way. --Nefronus 19:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
    And therefore the sharp photo is wrong? --Steindy 00:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    Therefore I assume it might not be up to QI criteria. Let’s see what others think. --Nefronus 05:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support enough for me --Commonists 19:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Nefronus. Too distracting, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 22:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The guy moves his hands while he is jogging. There is nothing distracting in it in my view. --Imehling 10:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing object. --Peulle 14:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Red_Delicious_Apple_2021.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Red Delicious Apple --Commonists 19:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 21:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    Bottom crop is very tight, could be better with a little more space, if possible. --Selbymay 14:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good, very detailed photo. The crops are not dealbreakers to me. Why is this in CR, though? Do you oppose, Selbymay? -- Ikan Kekek 18:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
    My comment was just a improvement suggestion. The picture isn't bad considering QI criterias but could be better. I don't oppose nor promote. --Selbymay 08:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment When I make a suggestion, I just leave it as a "review" and don't change the status of the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek 22:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Detailed, yet some planes of the image are unsharp from the focus stacking (the information about stacking should be mentioned in the description). The colors and the lighting are rather dull in my opinion (most of the apple is in shadow) + there’s the tight crop. --Nefronus 19:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • stacking is in the exif data --Commonists 19:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Nefronus. The missing sharpness planes are irritating at full resolution but only a minor issue with this subject. Yet it is easy to adjust the white balance and contrast. As long as this is not done, I am afraid I have to oppose. --Johannes Robalotoff 19:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine for me. --Palauenc05 07:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --JRff (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Jaguar_(Panthera_onca_palustris)_female_Piquiri_River_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Jaguar (Panthera onca palustris) female --Charlesjsharp 08:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quakity--Lmbuga 11:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough. Only the nose is good. --Steindy 22:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support Since it’s a photo from the wild, I am all for support. --Nefronus 08:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Nefronus --Moroder 11:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality to me. The nose is sharpest, but there's enough to see here. -- Ikan Kekek 01:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 06:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree Steindy. Just applying Charles' own standards to his own photos. Seven Pandas 22:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree Steindy.--Commonists 18:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I took the liberty to change the category from Pteronura brasiliensis to Panthera onca palustris. --Nefronus 18:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)