Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 08 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

Сказочный_Абалак.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Абалакский природно-исторический комплекс --Ольга Слотвинская 18:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose This girl is inappropriate, sorry. Bff 21:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    •  Comment Bff, when I read your review using the word "inappropriate", I thought this might be a porno picture, but of course it is nothing of the kind. I think that what you mean is that because this photo is a snap of a person in front of a motif, that's a subject that doesn't get selected as a Quality Image, and you could also explain why if you wanted to. -- Ikan Kekek 06:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
      • The girl is not related to the encyclopedic topic, which is important for this photo. Bff 10:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this is worthy of discussion. --Mdaniels5757 18:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, burnt highlights resp. colour clipping. Why should an image with a person in the foreground not be useful? --Smial 12:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Multiple technical issues.--Peulle 18:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting motif, but everything is slanted down to the left. -- Ikan Kekek 18:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Радостный_Абалак.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Абалакский природно-исторический комплекс --Ольга Слотвинская 18:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose This girl is inappropriate, sorry. She is not related to the encyclopedic topic, which is important for this photo. Bff 21:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think this is worthy of discussion. --Mdaniels5757 18:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have no problem with the person here, but there are chromatic aberrations, the perspective is warped, the shadows and highlights need work and the top crop is cutting off part of the building.--Peulle 18:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek 18:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle. --Smial 19:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Milpiés_(Cylindroiulus_caeruleocinctus),_Hartelholz,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2020-06-28,_DD_295-320_FS.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Millipede (Cylindroiulus caeruleocinctus), Hartelholz, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 09:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 11:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • specimen? --Charlesjsharp 18:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Does it make a difference for QI? --Poco a poco 21:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good for me. -- Spurzem 10:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --EV Raudtee 14:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent Blood Red Sandman 12:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Dead or alive, that's really impressive. However, I do agree that if this is a specimen, it should be so described, and accuracy of description is to my understanding something that is asked for of QIs, so please clarify this in your description whenever it's relevant. Thanks a lot. -- Ikan Kekek 23:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Mdaniels5757 17:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Escarabajo_(Chrysolina_sturmi),_Hartelholz,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2020-06-28,_DD_574-602_FS.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bettle (Chrysolina sturmi), Hartelholz, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 08:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Aristeas 08:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • should mention specimen --Charlesjsharp 18:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not relevant for QI --Poco a poco 09:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 10:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support, but I agree again with Charles' point. -- Ikan Kekek 01:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Mdaniels5757 17:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Severo-Priladozhsky_reserve._Ruskeala_waterfall_and_water_flows_of_the_Tohmajoki_river.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Category "Specially protected natural territories of Russia". Severo-Priladozhsky reserve. Ruskeala waterfall and water flows of the Tohmajoki river. This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2020. --Александр Байдуков 07:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 05:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed. --A.Savin 12:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 10:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose per Savin --EV Raudtee 14:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek 01:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose per A.Savin --Sandro Halank 19:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Jagiellonian_University_25.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 'King Casimir Plaque' at Novus College at the Jagiellonian University --Scotch Mist 13:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Distracting reflection that detracts from the quality of the image. --Buidhe 13:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Buidhe: Fixed - reflection removed although IMHO this did not distract from the sculptural reliefs on the plaque, nor the text. --Scotch Mist 15:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. Good quality. --S.Hinakawa 16:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Weak -- Spurzem 11:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment It looks like fairly destructive methods have been used to squash the reflections (flicking between the before and after images, a large number of pixels have been pushed from left to right to hide reflections, and the position of the number '4' in the year has changed slightly as a result). Ideally a polarizing filter would be used on the lens while taking the shot to dim reflections, as it's not really possible to restore the lost information in post-processing. Please add a template to the image details page to say that digital manipulations have been applied. --Bobulous 14:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for your comment - you are correct - should have remembered to do this but 'retouching an image' is not something I do very often! --Scotch Mist 18:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Mdaniels5757 17:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Nelkenwurz_(Geum_urbanum)-20200523-RM-085754.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Close-up of a buttercup flower after the petals have fallen off in the Bamberg Hain. Focus stack of 14 frames --Ermell 06:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Looks overprocessed to me, and there are a bunch of overexposed areas --Poco a poco 07:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version. Thanks for the review.--Ermell 13:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Misidentified plant. This is the infruitescence of some kind of Geum. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    •  Comment Judging from the date late in May and the confusion with Ranunculus acris this is very likely Geum urbanum (with yellow petals). Please recategorize, rename and change the description and the structured data accordingly. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    •  Support Good quality --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not convinced yet, sorry, Reinhold, it still looks overprocessed to me (too much sharpening or/and contrast) --Poco a poco 09:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I see a vertical stitching error in the dark green bokeh to the left of the upper stamens (or whatever), about 3/4 of the way to the left margin. Otherwise good. -- Ikan Kekek 06:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks for the hint.--Ermell 20:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Sure thing. Seems like good quality to me. For those who think the appearance is wrong, you should oppose. I don't know this plant, so if anything's off about it, I couldn't tell. The results I found in an image search were in other colors or shades, but this appearance certainly looks plausible to this non-expert. -- Ikan Kekek 21:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A little bit overprocessed, sorry. Stranges pixels... I Want more votes. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment A fascinating image, but I have to agree that (unlike your other focus stacking macro photos, Ermell, which are all very realistic) it looks a bit overprocessed – less sharpening, contrast, clarity etc. could be better. I have taken the time to look at some specimens of this plant in my garden, and IMHO the colours should be a bit more subdued, less vidid. No offence, --Aristeas 14:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment It does seem over-saturated or something. Mind you, the QI hurdle is pretty low. Charlesjsharp 15:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I just don't feel confident in supporting. I'll await your reply to these remarks, Ermell. -- Ikan Kekek 21:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    •  Info Poco a poco Sebring12Hrs Charlesjsharp Ikan Kekek Aristeas I find it interesting that some of you think that something is wrong but it is not exactly clear what. In this picture only the contrast was raised a bit and Topaz denoising was applied. Maybe it is because the plant is wet from the rain. The burned highlights that Diego complained about disturbed me and I tried to get rid of them. Thanks for all your reviews.--Ermell 22:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, I don't think there's anything wrong; I just haven't seen this plant in real life. I'm happy to take your word for the colors being accurate and will reinstate my supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek 07:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Ermell, this is a great shot, but IMO, there are pixelated parts, we can see too much squares. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Excessive oversharpening. --Smial 13:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose oversharpened. --EV Raudtee 14:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Trapezonotus_arenarius_auf_Wolfsmilch.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mutmaßlich Trapezonotus arenarius (auf Deutsch Sand-Bodenwanze oder Ackertrapp) auf Wolfsmilch, aufgenommen bei Dahn (Biosphärenreservat Pfälzerwald / Nordvogesen) Das Bild wurde durch "focus stacking" aus zwei Einzelbildern zusammengesetzt und ist aus diesem Grund digital bearbeitet worden. --Ssprmannheim 10:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Focus stacked, yet nothing is in focus plus a bunch of little spots (dust, water?). -- Ikan Kekek 00:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree re the focus. Just remove the spots and I think it'd be a QI. --Mdaniels5757 19:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --Charlesjsharp 19:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I removed the dust spots. Some of the areas seem like out of focus, thats because i used a lens from 1970. I could have uploaded a smaller, sharper version. --Ssprmannheim
 Question How big is the insect? Uploading a smaller version is not the way to do it. It's possible I'm getting spoiled by the incredible focus stacks of insects by people like Ermell and Poco a poco, but I was surprised not to see sharper focus stacking. The body of the insect looks pretty clear if I don't enlarge too far past the size of my laptop screen, but the legs are mostly out of focus, as is the underside. -- Ikan Kekek 08:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The thing is about 5mm long. Im just starting with doing focus stacks and im not very experienced yet. Also this picture was taken handheld and i have not so many shots to stack.
  •  Support Good quality considering the size of the insect. -- Ikan Kekek 06:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks QI to me now. --Mdaniels5757 22:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit noisy, but QI for me. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charlesjsharp. --EV Raudtee 14:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Mdaniels5757 17:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Mosca_común_(Musca_domestica),_Múnich,_Alemania,_2020-06-24,_DD_61-75_FS.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Housefly (Musca domestica), Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 11:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 11:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Most hairs surrounded by a blurry area and also many hairs not sharp --Llez 07:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I accept the arguments of the other voters --Llez 10:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Short DoF by design and IMO amazing for what it is. -- Ikan Kekek 11:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan Kekek. --Mdaniels5757 19:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Tight 'crop' but some great detail. --Scotch Mist 15:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support All in all, images like these are gold for biology books. This overview of the fly AND the detail of the facette eye in one image - I love it --PantheraLeo1359531 16:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment If this is dead Poco a poco, the description should say so, then we might judge it differently. Charlesjsharp 15:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 20:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Mdaniels5757 17:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Сад-сиренгарий_на_Щелковском_шоссе_9.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Сад-сиренгарий на Щелковском шоссе --Ulaisaeva 11:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 12:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Please, identify the species --Poco a poco 12:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Poco a poco: per category, species is Syringa vulgaris. --Mdaniels5757 17:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Thank you, but the background is too bright, not a QI to me like this --Poco a poco 09:13, June 29, 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough IMO.--Ermell 06:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco. --A.Savin 12:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco --EV Raudtee 14:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Mdaniels5757 17:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)