Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 06 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:GIMS_2019,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(GIMS1069).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Techart GrandGT Supreme at Geneva International Motor Show 2019, Le Grand-Saconnex --MB-one 08:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:55, 2 April 2019
  •  Oppose Photographing cars in exhibitions or museums is sometimes difficult. On the Porsche are too many small reflections and the ground is too bright. Please let us hear other opinions on the photo. -- Spurzem 19:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
    •  Comment Will try to fix the ground, but I don't think the reflections are that problematic. --MB-one 08:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is indeed very problematic. The shape of the car is nearly invisible due to the many kinds of reflections on the car. Technically the image is perfect, but visually it is not a QI. --Granada 06:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise, lighting, low DOF, disturbing background. --Smial 12:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 16:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Audi_S4_(20100325-DSC01393).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Audi S4 (B6) at National Mall, Washington, D.C. --MB-one 08:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:01, 2 April 2019
  •  Oppose The image is a bit too bright for me with too less contrast. But above all, the light was unfavorable to photograph the car. The side windows to the rear window look milky. In my opinion, it is not a picture of good quality. I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 19:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 06:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Steenbras_River_Gorge_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination One of the "crystal pools" in Steenbras River Gorge. --Kallerna 04:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Eatcha 05:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose disagree. Looks downscaled to appear a better quality. --Milseburg 13:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Comparing the first version and the second version, I have to agree with Milseburg. Ikan Kekek 06:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz_CLK_270_CDi_en_Valencia.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz CLK 270 CDI in Valencia, Spain --Dorieo 12:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 10:32, 31 March 2019
  •  Oppose The car is much too bright. No quality image for me. Please discuss -- Spurzem 20:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed and not centered.--Ermell 06:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

File:ContecRail_Køf_T51_pic1.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Photographed near Koge train station, Denmark. By User:Alfvanbeem --Piotr Bart 13:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 13:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Type of engine would be very useful --Ermell 14:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support The file name indicates – if I understand right – that it is a small locomotive with oil firing (Diesel engine) and fluid transmission of the Danish railway company Contec Rail. The photo is impeccable and therefore for me a quality image that can be quite useful in a Wikipedia article. -- Spurzem 13:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Bgag 00:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Torre_de_Hércules.601_-_A_Coruña.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Torre de Hércules, A Coruña (Spain).--Drow male 18:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Eatcha 18:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky noisy and shadows blotchy cause of too much post processing. --PtrQs 00:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky is way too noisy. --MB-one 09:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Beach_handball_at_the_2018_Summer_Youth_Olympics_–_Girls_Preliminary_Round_–_CRO-ASA_071.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Beach handball at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics at 10 October 2018 – Girls Preliminary Round Group A – Croatia-American Samoa 2:0. By Marcus Cyron --Piotr Bart 17:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Eatcha 18:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose missing focus, chromatic noise --PtrQs 00:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Poor composition, IMO, with bad crop on the right. -- Ikan Kekek 07:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not the right moment to take a picture. Both girls are looking to the right and I have got no idea what is interesting about this. --Michielverbeek 08:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Neutral -- The picture is something of a not so well-done souvenir photo of a sports event but not a picture of quality. Especially the girls in the backlight are too dark. But I do not want to give a judgment, because otherwise it would be too easy to be seen as revenge. -- Spurzem 12:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I really rare decline an image because of composition, but as for Michielverbeek:  Oppose --Smial 18:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle 18:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor composition --Moroder 16:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial. Lighting and sharpness are actually fine for an action shot. --MB-one 09:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Triangle_file.486.png[edit]

  • Nomination Big triangleI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Websterdead 16:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose really ? Are you serious about this ? There are probably thousands of these types of shapes available on commons, I do not think a single of them is QI. What's special special in this triangle ? I do not know on what grounds should I decline it, but I will never support these types of shapes for QI. Sorry -- Eatcha 17:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is just a triangle. --Piotr Bart 17:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment For declining a picture please cite a reason referred to in the QI Guidlines. Otherwise leave it to others to review it. Every picture - even those you estimate trivial or odd - deserves a fair review. --PtrQs 00:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I've seen non-photographic images declined before as too simple. Why would it be a problem to decline this one? -- Ikan Kekek 07:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment I did not state that I think this triangle a QI, but declining an image should contain some information about the reasons for this step. And I guess that ranting about do not know on what grounds should I decline it does not give the photographer any chance to improve his future images. -- PtrQs 13:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
      •  Comment - In this case, it's not an issue of improving this kind of image, but that this is such a simple geometric figure that the level of skill involved in creating it is so low that it doesn't really merit QI consideration. -- Ikan Kekek 04:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I never declined it, as I told above do not know on what grounds should I decline it, but it's an error while adjusting the comments. SEE User:Eatcha/diff -- EATCHA (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Ikan says, it´s to simple, I think. If there is no specific guideline for such images, it doesn´t mean it is automatically a QI. Btw. description and categories could be more precize. It´s a special type of triangle, not simply "big". --Milseburg 19:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Too simple. -- Ikan Kekek 04:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too simple a shape to reach QI status. --Peulle 18:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose rasterized image of a simple geometric shape is not good quality. --MB-one 09:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)