Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 19 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Football_freestyle_2013_Masters_epee_t163604.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Football freestyle demonstration at the 2013 Masters à l'Epée. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 17:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 09:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disagree, Head and legs were not in focus. --Geoprofi Lars 13:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  CommentThe ball is --Andrew J.Kurbiko 12:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  CommentThats not enought --Geoprofi Lars 19:00, 12 February 2021
  •  Support The ball is in focus and is frozen in the air with 1/500 shutter speed, the sportsman's body and right hand are also in focus with proper level of detail. I would consider slightly blurred legs as stressing the quick movement of the sportsman and thus contributing to the image overall impression and right understanding of the event. IMO it is a feature, not a problem. --LexKurochkin 14:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --MB-one 21:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 13:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Sculpture_-_The_Palace_of_Versailles.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture - The Palace of Versailles (by Commonists) --Sebring12Hrs 08:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Request Better file description and categorisation --Moroder 22:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks --Commonists 09:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, but I consider noise in upper part of the image more significant problem. It is visible in shadows and midtones on head, neck, shoulders, below statue left arm at the body. --LexKurochkin 11:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Noise is irrelevant --Moroder 11:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think, it needs discussion. Noise as per my comment; hair on top of the head and near neck is not sharp enough. --LexKurochkin 15:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Noise and lack of sharpness, per LexKurochkin. --Tagooty (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Moroder. --MB-one 21:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photographer can't vote on their own photo at COM:QIC (see above: "Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination."), and after some consideration, I think the head should be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek 11:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose lack of sharpness.--Tobias ToMar Maier 11:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)