Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 26 2022

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2015_06_28_011_Auge_Sammlungen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stamp collection: Deutsche Bundespost from 1961
    --F. Riedelio 06:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Too soft for this static subject. Fixable? --Tagooty 02:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 06:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Tagooty 06:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, for such a simple thing, it's not sharp enough. --Palauenc05 19:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agreed. Blurry. -- Ikan Kekek 06:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose--Peulle 14:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

File:HakanIST_at_Wikimania_2019.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination HakanIST from WMTR at Wikimania 2019. Stockholm City Hall. Sweden.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This file was produced using the Camera lent by Wikimedia UG Georgia. --Mehman97 18:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Sorry! In my opinion a very bad composition. The photo shows far too much sky and clouds and the person it is actually about is glued far too small at the bottom edge of the picture, --Steindy 16:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
    Cropping a bit of the sky could make this QI. --Tagooty 05:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support It's certainly arguable that part of the sky should be cropped, but the technical quality is good enough, and while the composition is unusual for QIC, it's OK to my eyes and I think latitude should be granted for taste. -- Ikan Kekek 05:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. The central composition is clearly intended and well executed in its way. --Smial 07:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think this would benefit from following the rule of thirds. Thanks. Mike Peel 18:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Mike Peel: What does the en:Rule of thirds have to do with en:Portrait photography? The rule of thirds is valid in landscape photography, but not in portraits. In the picture, 5/6 of the photo is sky and clouds and 1/6 is the person. The fact that a wikipedian is featured doesn't make the photo any better. If the person were larger and represented in the right or left half of the image, it would still be acceptable. But maybe I didn't learn how to take pictures. Regards --Steindy 18:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Common_hawk-cuckoo_(Hierococcyx_varius)_at_Kairwaan_gaon,_Dehradun_district_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Common hawk-cuckoo (Hierococcyx varius) at Kairwaan gaon, Dehradun district. --Satdeep Gill 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not convinced this is QI, due to the blown out leaves that distract from the main subject --Mike Peel 18:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree. The ones on the left are distracting. -- Ikan Kekek 07:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support The exposure is a little bit on the high side, but it doesn't seem to have distorted the colours. I don't find the heavily blurred leaves disturbing, they rather contribute positively to the composition of the picture, they don't obscure anything of the subject and they don't seem overexposed to me. The central subject is sharp enough (and fortunately not over-sharpened), the lighting is very good. --Smial 10:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose regretfully per Mike Peel and Ikan. --GRDN711 16:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)