Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 05 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Extension_tubes_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Extension tubes. --Dmitry Makeev 14:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Eatcha 14:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not many things are in focus, possibly because of wide apperture. Metadata is not presented so I can't know for sure. Please discuss --Podzemnik 00:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Podzemnik --Cvmontuy 14:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would expect the whole front side (e.g. "21mm") to be in focus. Anything more would require stacking, which I don't think we should demand for a QI.--Peulle 10:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Pogona_vitticeps_001_-_Zoo_Aquarium_de_Madrid.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pogona vitticeps (central bearded dragon) in the Zoo de Madrid, Spain. --Drow male 07:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose poor quality. Charlesjsharp 07:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks acceptable to me, a bit of denoising would help, though --Poco a poco 10:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles - 24 inches long and in a zoo, so I don't think it's good enough. If the photo is de-noised, I'll take another look and decide on the basis of how the edited version looks. -- Ikan Kekek 04:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 10:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Ovis_orientalis_aries.002_-_Faunia.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Ovis orientalis aries (sheep) in the Park of Faunia, Madrid, Spain. --Drow male 07:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose poor quality. Charlesjsharp 07:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  SupportI disagree. It's fine. --MB-one 10:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Just a bit soft but OK, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 04:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan -- Eatcha 06:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per support comments above. --Acabashi 15:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Cvmontuy 14:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Hippopotamus_amphibius.001_-_Zoo_Aquarium_de_Madrid.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Hippopotamus amphibius (Hippopotamus) in the Zoo de Madrid, Spain. --Drow male 04:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose poor quality. Charlesjsharp 07:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO OK for QI --Eatcha 15:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Eatcha. -- Ikan Kekek 04:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support For the standards of the time (the image was taken in 2009), I think this one passes the bar of a QI for that time.--Peulle 06:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 10:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Cervus_elaphus_hispanicus.001_-_Zoo_Aquarium_de_Madrid.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Cervus elaphus hispanicus (Spanish deer) in the Zoo de Madrid, Spain. --Drow male 08:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 11:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor quality. Charlesjsharp 07:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks very random to me, I miss a glimpse of composition. --Podzemnik 03:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit underexposed, could also be a little sharper. CA needs cleaning up.--Peulle 06:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 10:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

File:2019_Klasztor_Zgromadzenia_Sióstr_Maryi_Niepokalanej_w_Bardzie_11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Monastery of the Congregation of the Sisters of Mary Immaculate in Bardo 4 --Jacek Halicki 07:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 07:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI disagree, a car in the center disturbs the whole composition. --Arabsalam 13:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. The car does not dominate the picture and does not cover anything essential.--Smial 20:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - The light is far from ideal, but the car ruins nothing and the picture is a clear QI to my eyes and mind. -- Ikan Kekek 05:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per other support comments above. Acabashi 14:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 10:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

File:2019_Klasztor_Zgromadzenia_Sióstr_Maryi_Niepokalanej_w_Bardzie_12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Monastery of the Congregation of the Sisters of Mary Immaculate in Bardo 5 --Jacek Halicki 07:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Too many cars disturbing the compositon. --Arabsalam 13:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Good quality for me. --Tournasol7 14:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The sky is a bit bright, almost blown. Otherwise fine, I do not take issue with the cars.--Peulle 18:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Peulle. --Smial 20:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - The cars are fine, IMO, but I don't like the upper left corner. Jacek, would you consider dialing back the highlights a bit? -- Ikan Kekek 05:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Peulle. --Acabashi 12:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 10:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

File:2019_Klasztor_Zgromadzenia_Sióstr_Maryi_Niepokalanej_w_Bardzie_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Monastery of the Congregation of the Sisters of Mary Immaculate in Bardo 2 --Jacek Halicki 06:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeInsufficient quality.Two cables in the front disturb the compostion --Arabsalam 07:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Good quality for me. It's true; two cables disturb a bit, but it's not candidate for FP. --Tournasol7 14:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support good photo. to get this angle the wires are ok. you can't expect the guy to cut them down. Seven Pandas 11:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per above comments. --Acabashi 13:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose without power lines, yes to QI, with the lines no QI.--Fischer.H 17:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I'm a little troubled by not being able to see most of the vertical portion of the cross on top of the monastery. Was the light such that you weren't able to see it at the time, either? If so, I would support. If not, you may need to dial back the highlights a bit, so that the rest of the cross becomes visible. But I don't want you to clone out the power lines. -- Ikan Kekek 05:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Power lines. --Yann 14:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others --Cvmontuy 17:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 10:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Rocher_dans_la_verdure.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rock in the greenery (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 09:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Why use f/2.4 with daylight and still photo? --Moroder 09:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok to me --Poco a poco 13:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Poco. -- Ikan Kekek 19:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective warp is too heavy for me; trees on both sides are leaning in.--Peulle 06:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I corrected the perspective, Gzen92 07:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 Support OK.--Peulle 10:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. (Moroder is right that a smaller aperture would have been better, but the result is still OK here.) --Aristeas 09:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Moroder.--Fischer.H 08:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 10:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Great_Coat_of_Arms_of_Congress_Poland.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Caution! This is a contemporary reconstruction of great arms of Congress Poland. By User:Avalokitesvara --Piotr Bart 11:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Eatcha 12:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose crop is too tight and: does the 2Mpx limit not apply on svg files?. --PtrQs 23:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment svg files can be scaled arbitrarily, so the 2 MPix-limit does not apply. Tight crop should in this case also not apply, because the background is transparent. There is no information lost in the surrounding,or in the background. --Smial 12:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment On my screens the cross at the top and the border at the bottom seem to be touched/cut by the rim. Am I wrong? --PtrQs 21:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
They are not cut, you can see it under magnification -- Piotr Bart 18:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Lot of work, but I can't judge, if the coat of arms is heraldically correct. --Smial 12:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me.--Peulle 10:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 12:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)