Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 19 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

==[edit]

  • Nomination Alcedo atthis ispida in water --Sonya7iv 08:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support good quality. --Fischer.H 09:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree Massive oversharpening. --Smial 10:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI 4 me. --Palauenc05 08:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much motion blur on the bird. --Kallerna 18:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support not an FP, but a QI. Seven Pandas 21:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Hummingbirds are hard, this is absolutely good enough. --King of Hearts 05:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Less/more subtle sharpening would be better, but else more than OK. --Aristeas 07:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose -- difficult to decide here. Could have been stunning, but on the other hand I agree, massive quality problems. --A.Savin 01:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good for me. I don't see the motion blur on the bird. -- Spurzem 21:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Trougnouf 09:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

File:VT1_Turusta_Helsinkiin_14.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lakiamäki Tunnel. --Kallerna 18:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfortunate crop, too tight on the left, too much dark shadow on the right. --Palauenc05 21:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree Palau Seven Pandas 22:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for QI. --King of Hearts 00:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is sharp. But that is not enough for QI as I think. Especially the dark shadow is very disturbing and the crop at the left is not good. -- Spurzem 06:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree Palau too. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC))

File:Ausulsjokk_stream_during_golden_hour_(DSCF3045-DSCF3072).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ausulsjokk stream during golden hour --Trougnouf 10:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Very nice lighting but IMO a bit too hazy. Feel free to discuss. --MB-one 10:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, the foreground isn't too hazy imo. --Trougnouf 10:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC
  •  Support For me is super OK --Sonya7iv 16:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - It's quite sharp enough, and anyway, it's an atmospheric shot that doesn't need to be as sharp as one shot in fuller light. -- Ikan Kekek 02:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful image, good quality -- Spurzem 22:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Trougnouf 09:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Langweerderwielen-Langwarder_Wielen._Harde_wind,_regen,_hagel_en_natte_sneeuw_op_22-02-2020._(d.j.b)_08.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Langweerderwielen-Langwarder Wielen. Benches next to the bike path on the side of the lake.--Famberhorst 05:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose To much noise IMO, sorry --Cvmontuy 02:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. @Cvmontuy: Noise reduction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 17:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good picture. -- Ikan Kekek 09:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 08:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 21:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Trougnouf 09:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)