Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 09 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Kakadu_(AU),_Kakadu_National_Park,_Yellow_Water_--_2019_--_3983.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ngurrungurrudjba (Yellow Water) in Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory, Australia --XRay 04:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 04:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness and blown highlights. Sorry. --Ermell 15:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Sharpness improved and highlights reduced. The highlights of the sun are not fully avoidable. --XRay 17:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - I would have supported both versions, but this one is notably improved and very high-quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Much better. Thanks.--Ermell 09:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 18:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Kakadu_(AU),_Kakadu_National_Park,_Nadap_Lookout_--_2019_--_4200.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View from Nadap Lookout, Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory, Australia --XRay 04:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp IMO. Sorry.--Ermell 15:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done IMO sharp enough (the rock of the lookout at the bottom is very near), but I improved the sharpness and it's a little bit better now. Thank you. --XRay 17:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very good photo, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 08:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Better now but still quite soft.--Ermell 08:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 18:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Le_Costa_Mediterranea_dans_la_rade_de_Port_Louis_(Maurice)_le_29_février_2020.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Le Costa Mediterranea dans la rade de Port Louis (Maurice) le 29 février 2020. Il devrait rester quelques jours après avoir été refoulé des Seychelles dans le contexte du coronavirus. --Benoît Prieur 21:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
Description problem is fixed now. --Benoît Prieur 12:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Description should be fixed. The images depicts the Costa Mediterranea, not the World Odyssee. --MB-one 09:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nearly half of the water should cropped out. --XRay 17:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the crop should be done. And IMO sharpness is at a low level. --XRay 17:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @XRay: ✓ Done. --Benoît Prieur 12:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Very weak  Support. The crop is much better, but the sharpness is only acceptable. --XRay 12:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 18:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Recondo-0088_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gastón Recondo, sport journalist of Argentina in Espacio Clarín, Mar del Plata, Argentina Renomination after rework--Ezarate 23:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question Can I just ask: is this the original version? You don't have a colour version out there as well? Just thinking about adapted works; if there's a colour QI out there, the B/W version of the same image should not also be a QI.--Peulle 20:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Peulle. This the original version, the lightning conditions and strong CA's may decline the QIC of this version, thanks for review it!! --Ezarate 23:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done within a week. --XRay 10:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I explained why used the B&W version --Ezarate 11:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, that's fair enough. I don't have a problem with either version, to be honest, but just so you know: the colour version cannot be a QI if this b/w image is.--Peulle (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question That's specifically stated in the guidelines? -- Ikan Kekek 08:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • QIC practice, it has been generally accepted for some years. If it were possible, what's to stop someone from taking a QI, creating fifteen slightly different colour versions of it and insist they all be approved for QI status? --Peulle 09:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no rule for colour and black-and-white versions. The development is (fundamental, not slightly) different and IMO each version can be a QIC. I don't see the problem with slightly different colour versions. This should be another problem. (BTW: The development of this black-and-white photograph should be better.) --XRay 09:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That's good to know. Stand by for my nominations of all my colour QIs in b/w versions, in order to boost my QI numbers. --Peulle 21:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's too much soft gray without brighter or darker areas. The characteristics of a good black-and-white photograph are missing. The light in the background is disturbing too. Sorry. --XRay 04:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Double con XRay?--Ermell 16:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Sorry, the "real" contra should replace the formal contra. --XRay 09:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI think the light in the background is distracting but what I really don´t like is the microphone in the face. It looks allmost as if he is eating the microphone. I want to see the whole face, i could accept the microphone left or right of the chin.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 18:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)