Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 09 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2017-10-01_COC_Klingenthal_Nejc_Dežman.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination FIS Ski Jumping Summer Continental Cup Klingenthal 2017 Nejc Dežman --Wikijunkie 11:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose IMO not sharp enough for a QI, sorry. --Basotxerri 15:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. For me it is sharp enough if I not enlarge to more than life-size. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Not sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 10:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose An image should look sharp at 100% without the need for downsampling; it has to do with the photographer's ability to choose the right focus.--Peulle 10:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-10-01_COC_Klingenthal_Moritz_Bär.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination FIS Ski Jumping Summer Continental Cup Klingenthal 2017 Moritz Bär --Wikijunkie 11:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose IMO not sharp enough for a QI, sorry. --Basotxerri 15:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it is sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Not sharp enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 10:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp. Also the athlete was caught in an unfortunate moment; the head looks bigger than the body.--Peulle 10:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-10-03_FIS_SGP_2017_Klingenthal_Siegerehrung_Johann_André_Forfang_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination FIS Ski Jumping Summer Grand Prix Klingenthal 2017 on 2017-10-03 Johann André Forfang --Wikijunkie 14:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too soft, not a QI to me, sorry --Poco a poco 18:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What do you meen with "to soft"? --Wikijunkie 22:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - "Too soft" means not focused enough. I agree: None of the face is sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 07:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This image wont be a FP, but this is QI-vote... --Wikijunkie 11:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment FP and QI are two different ways of judging a photo. QI is all about the technical quality of the photo while the 'wow-factor' can make people ignore lack of technical quality in a photo. There are many FP's that are not QI. --cart-Talk 14:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient technical quality: not sharp.--Peulle 17:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good portrait and sharp enough for QI. -- Spurzem 19:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --W.carter 20:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Close wing position of Spindasis vulcanus Fabricius, 1775 – Common Silverline WLB DSC 3043.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing position of Spindasis vulcanus vulcanus Fabricius, 1775 – Indian Common Silverline (by Sandipoutsider) --Atudu 07:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Cvmontuy 02:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Colours have been distorted in post-processing. Charlesjsharp 13:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Colours look reasonable. --C messier 10:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 20:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)