Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 15 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Rovinj_seen_from_the_sea.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rovinj seen from the sea by User:Galessandroni --Hangman'sDeath 16:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 20:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Pixelated, add better cats and geo --Podzemnik 05:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad crop. --Kallerna 07:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not really sharp enough, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 09:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not enough detail imo.--Peulle 16:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 23:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

File:DSC08100-Панорама-Edit_09.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Горный массив Караул-Оба: Морское лесничество, кв. 45, Новый Свет, Судак, КрымЯ, владелец авторских прав на это произведение, добровольно публикую его на условиях следующей лицензии:Это изображение загружено в ходе конкурса Вики любит Землю — 2019. --Александр Рудный 15:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 20:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hum is the horizon ok? Please discuss --Podzemnik 05:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No, that's a very clear case of barrel distortion.--Peulle 08:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 09:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

File:The_brown_winged_kingfisher.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Brown-winged kingfisher (Pelargopsis amauroptera). By User:Md. Tareq Aziz Touhid --RockyMasum 11:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. You could improve it by removing the grains on background --Zcebeci 11:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not QI for me --Charlesjsharp 11:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 Support But good for me: good composition, beautiful colors, good sharpness. -- Spurzem 12:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. --Pulsarwind 15:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ashwin Geet Dsa 17:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles, and there should be a category for the bird. The Wikipedia article doesn't say how big the bird is, but regardless, I don't think the capture is sharp enough for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 00:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose crop should be tighter. —Kallerna 07:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Somewhat noisy, but acceptable sharpness, very good lighting and a really great composition. Please don't crop. --Smial 09:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral IMO acceptable, but the branch top right should be cropped out. A closer crop would be better. --XRay 09:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question Can one of the people voting for this photo at least add the proper category for the bird? Otherwise, you should not vote for it, because it's obviously undercategorized. -- Ikan Kekek 09:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem, cat added --Kritzolina 10:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks a lot, much appreciated. -- Ikan Kekek 21:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem --Palauenc05 14:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy Poco a poco 18:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 23:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Amantani_Interior.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of Amantaní from PachamamaI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Imehling 09:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 09:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The alignment is bad so that the horizon is very wavy. --Milseburg 15:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question The waviness I see is mountains. Where are you seeing the horizon someplace where there are no mountains at the horizon? -- Ikan Kekek 19:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Haha. I can distinguish mountains from waves. The bent horizon makes a long wave. For example, it is much higher on the right than on the left. The mountains on the horizon should appear approximately in the same height angle. Unfortunately no coordinates are given. So we can't have the actual horizon course calculated. Maybe Imehling add them. --Milseburg (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC) [This calculation] should be close to the location where the image was taken and shows a nearby straight horizon with the peaks of the mountains. --Milseburg 11:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • OK. To be clear, I was asking you a question. I can't tell where the horizon would be if there are mountains everywhere along it. -- Ikan Kekek 00:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking again, I do see what you mean and have removed my supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek 09:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Кувшинки_в_Монастырском_пруду_Бештаугорского_заказника.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wiki Loves Earth 2020. --Ganzikov 14:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 20:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. There are attractive elements in this image but also distractions – the lower third of the frame is out-of-focus foreground and the flower is partially hidden behind a leaf. --GRDN711 02:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per GRDN711. --Fischer.H 14:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have absolutely no problem with the blurred foreground, this is photographer's choice and not only acceptable, but even a very nice composition. Unfortunately the focus is not exactly on the flower, but a small amount behind: some leaves around have good sharpness, but the stamen have not. --Smial 08:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Вяз_шершавый.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Сунцовский вяз --Ele-chudinovsk 07:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 07:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Green CA on the leaves should be removed.--Peulle 08:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support We should not overdo. -- Spurzem 08:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H 08:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support CAs are existent but IMO negligible. --MB-one 12:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much CAs, not elligible for me. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CAs should be removed.--Ermell 19:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)