Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 12 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Dahlias,_Walsdorf.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A dahlia plant in Walsdorf. --Vincent60030 09:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Focus is on the bud, while it should be on the bloom --MB-one 11:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I beg to differ. Looks focused enough to me. --Vincent60030 15:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per MB-one.--Peulle 11:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

File:SGI-2016-South_Georgia_(Salisbury_Plain)–Antarctic_fur_seal_(Arctocephalus_gazella)_06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella), Salisbury Plain, South Georgia. By User:Godot13 --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 08:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose head overexposed --Charlesjsharp 10:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 01:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Ayuntamiento,_Poznan,_Polonia,_2019-12-18,_DD_04-06_HDR.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination City Hall, Poznan, Poland --Poco a poco 07:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Vericals on the left side of building are not straight (see the note). Perspective correction needed --Halavar 07:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I applied an additional perspective correction but, to be honest, without being convinced that it's an improvement --Poco a poco 20:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Looks better, but still, left side leaning inward. Maybe we need more opinions. --Halavar 21:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support There is a little converence in the verticals, but it's acceptable to my eye. My only question is whether the slightly lumpy texture of the sky is explained by JPEG compression and, if so, could another version be produced with a higher quality and larger file size? But I reckon the overall quality is currently sufficient for QI status. --Bobulous 19:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
    Agree, 30 MPx should be enough for QI, the minimum requirement is 2 MPx. I reduced though the noise in the sky a bit Poco a poco 09:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support--Moroder 01:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support It’s all good. The verticals shouldn’t be a problem for QI. We’re not going for FP here. —Vincent60030 19:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. NB: Some experts and textbooks on photography even recommend slightly leaning in verticals for such photos and advise against the strictly vertical verticals we usually recommend here on Commons. Therefore this is IMHO a matter of taste, and should not be the reason to decline a photo which is in almost all aspects very good. --Aristeas 09:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)