Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 01 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

Pronghorn Yellowstone (crop).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pronghorn in Yellowstone National Park, USA -- Der Wolf im Wald 13:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Deservedly already at FPC. PumpkinSky 14:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Of course the image is OK but it's a crop of an already promoted QI, thus I understand that it cannot be nominated. --Basotxerri 17:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware of that rule and I didn't notice it was cropped from another image. PumpkinSky 17:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Rule derived from Commons:Image guidelines. To be helpful, the uploader should also write on the file's description page that it is a crop from another photo. --W.carter 18:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Muscari_armeniacum20170624_8090fruits.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fruits of Muscari armeniacum. --Bff 12:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Below minimum size.New file uploaded.--Ermell 21:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC) --Ermell 06:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Actually, the photo is more than 10 Mpix (not MB) large and sharp at its subject (although I find the unsharp stems a bit disturbing) --C messier 12:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per C messier, quud quality.--Manfred Kuzel 09:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The DoF could have been a little bit deeper, I think, but good enough for QI given the reasonably high resolution.--Peulle 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 11:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Oceana_Pond_3_LR.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Oceana Pond --PumpkinSky 20:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose all is very unsharp, sorry --Ezarate 22:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support This one is ok. --Tsungam 11:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
     Comment - I think enough of the photo is sharp for QI. PumpkinSky, is the color true? -- Ikan Kekek 08:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    *@Ikan Kekek: I won't be able to get to my computer with Lightroom for several hours to double check everything, but things I recall for certain are that I didn't change the hue settings, did not use split tones, and the lens had a circular polarizing filter on it--which is why we can see through the water in the foreground. I can check other settings later today. PumpkinSky 10:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ikan Kekek: Hue, saturation, and luminance were not changed in Basic or HSL or Color panel. The only color change was in Effects under Blue where I gave it a minor Blue saturation setting of +10. This is the only color change. I just uploaded a version where I added a minor Vignette setting of -4; IMHO it's better. Let me know what you think. PumpkinSky 19:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll  Support -- Ikan Kekek 01:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cvmontuy 17:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough for QI. The colors and the deep insight into the pond are exactly what you get with such a filter and why you use it. --W.carter 10:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 11:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Sulawesi_sunbird_trsr_DSCN0846_v1.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Female olive-backed sunbird in Tangkoko Nature Reserve, Sulawesi --Shankar Raman 03:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, IMO not sharp enough and details missing. --XRay 05:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per XRay. -- Ikan Kekek 08:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough; background is also too busy --Alandmanson 14:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per XRay.--Peulle 16:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Schärfe und Details fehlen. ----Fischer.H 08:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. It is sharp enough for me. But I would prefer a tighter cut. -- Spurzem 22:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 11:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Arnasudden-@bjornsehlin-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Årnäsuddens naturreservat. By User:Björn Sehlin --Josve05a 23:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quallity. PumpkinSky 02:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Seems to be heavily downscaled. --Berthold Werner 08:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question Björn Sehlin, could you please upload the original (not downsampled) version of this photo? / Hej Björn, kan du vara snälla och ladda upp en version som inte är förminskad över det här fotot. För att bilden ska bli godkänd som en QI så ska den vara i sitt originalformat för att all information i filen ska finnas tillgänglig. --W.carter 08:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now.--Peulle 12:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 11:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Arnasudden-@bjornsehlin-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Årnäsuddens naturreservat. By User:Björn Sehlin --Josve05a 23:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 02:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Seems to be heavily downscaled. --Berthold Werner 08:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question Björn Sehlin, could you please upload the original (not downsampled) version of this photo? / Hej Björn, kan du vara snälla och ladda upp en version som inte är förminskad över det här fotot. För att bilden ska bli godkänd som en QI så ska den vara i sitt originalformat för att all information i filen ska finnas tillgänglig. --W.carter 08:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now.--Peulle 12:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 11:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)