Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 04 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Lioness_Cub_Luangwa_Zambia_Jul23_A7C_06330.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lioness with cub (Panthera leo melanochaita), S. Luangwa Nat'l Park, Zambia --Tagooty 01:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 02:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose cub in focus but not female --Charlesjsharp 13:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
    •  Info Taken in fading evening light, so I used a wide aperture. --Tagooty 02:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
      •  Info I would have used a much higher ISO. Charlesjsharp 12:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charlesjsharp --LexKurochkin 16:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support As far as I read the subject is the puppy,and it is perfectly in focus --PaestumPaestum 18:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment In this case there is a composition problem. --LexKurochkin 12:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Having the nearer lioness be this out of focus is quite disconcerting. -- Ikan Kekek 07:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_Basking_of_Cepora_nerissa_(Fabricius,_1775)_-_Common_Gull_(2)_WLB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing Basking of Cepora nerissa (Fabricius, 1775) - Common Gull (2) WLB --Anitava Roy 03:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose oversaturated --Charlesjsharp 15:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The intense colours could come from the special arrangement of the light sources. I don't find them exaggerated. Very nice composition and good sharpness. --Smial 12:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes some lighting and camera settings do produce over-saturated images. These must be corrected in post-processing. Charlesjsharp 12:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I would not say that it must be done, rather that it can be done if it is wanted. Everyone has their own taste and every photo is unique - both, in the moment it is meant to convey and in the artistic point it is meant to express. There is always room for improvement, but it is still a good quality photo.  Support --Anil Ö. (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Luda.slominska 12:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment Nothing personal, but I would like to point out here again that this section of QIC is called "consensual review" and is not a voting-only site. It is therefore very welcome to give reasons for your judgement. You don't have to write a whole novel every time. A "per others" or "per $user" or "unsharp" will do if necessary. A vote without justification doesn't really help the photographer to improve his photos. --Smial 12:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
      • For me the picture has nice colours and composition, every detail is in focus--Luda.slominska 10:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support It looks good to me. Thanks. Mike Peel 21:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

File:American_Falls_View.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination American Falls --銀河市長 00:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Oversaturated, especially the people on the left and the foliage on both sides that are bright blue and green. Besides that I quite like this picture a lot though. ReneeWrites 21:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    I readjust the saturation. --銀河市長 20:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question Why is this here? There shouldn't be anything here without a vote! --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
  • It's here because everyone assumes "Discussion" is the status for a discussion, unless they are already QIC insiders. Yet every time I've proposed changing "Discussion" to something that means what it says, my proposal has been shot down. Maybe you should make the proposal this time. -- Ikan Kekek 01:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but it is really difficult to change anything here and I don't believe that it is helpful to restart another previously failed request once again. If I find something like this before it is moved to CR, then I generally revert it to "Nomination" and add a comment. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Agreed. There's a really stubborn inertia of not doing anything to improve the site. Even a proposal to fix the spelling of "Quality image candidates" was voted down, to my shock, because no-one wanted to fix the spellings of all the links, which I would have been willing to do a bunch of work on. -- Ikan Kekek 18:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support It looks good to me. Thanks. Mike Peel 21:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Surprisingly low level of detail especially when looking at the hills. Unless the people on the left are all tilted, this would also require correction. --Аныл Озташ 00:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)