Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 15 2022

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Avenida_de_Luarca.001_-_Ribadeo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sign of Avenida de Luarca (Avenue of Luarca) in Ribadeo (Lugo, Galicia, Spain). --Drow male 05:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Comment Wrong description --F. Riedelio 07:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    I have changed the Spanish description, and I have added English and Galician description. --Drow male 05:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good quality now. --F. Riedelio 07:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry but green CAs are too big for me. --Sebring12Hrs 09:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose There is also minor visible violett chromatic aberration in the upper left part of the image. --F. Riedelio 10:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
     Comment Visible chromatic aberration should be removed --F. Riedelio 10:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

File:A_mail_pigeon.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A mail pigeon standing on an iron frame.--MSN12102001 16:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose tricky to get good quality close-ups on a phone, even if downsized --Charlesjsharp 10:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose Unsharp. Why is this in "Discuss" mode? MSN12102001, if that's your doing, please explain why you think this is a Quality Image. -- Ikan Kekek 15:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose Unsharp as mentioned above. --SHB2000 04:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Walking_path_on_a_snowy_day_in_Noirefontaine,_Belgium_(DSCF5899).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Walking path (GR16, GRP161) on a snowy day in Noirefontaine (Bouillon, Belgium) --Trougnouf 22:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose A bit hazy with poor technical quality. --SHB2000 00:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    I disagree; the foreground is sharp and haze in the background is not an issue imo. I don't know what you are referring to w.r.t. poor technical quality. --Trougnouf 16:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
     Support I agree with you. I think it's a good photo. -- Ikan Kekek 16:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Pictures taken on hazy days usually have low detail contrast and thus often appear less sharp than shots taken in bright sunshine. I think the photo is good enough. --Smial 09:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 09:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per SHB2000. --Fischer.H 10:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's good given the weather conditions, you can almost feel the cold. BigDom 16:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Corrida_in_Seville._May_2013_Muleta_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: File:Corrida in Seville. Muleta --Ввласенко 11:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
     Oppose crop of bull --Charlesjsharp 17:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
     Comment You're right, so I'm changed the picture frame. --Ввласенко 20:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality in this version. -- Ikan Kekek 16:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a QI if one of the main subjects is cut off. --SHB2000 10:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support The torero is sharp enough.--Ermell 21:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 08:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Yacimiento_de_las_Navillas,_Cervera_del_Río_Alhama,_La_Rioja,_España,_2021-08-31,_DD_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Archaeological Site of Navillas, Cervera del Río Alhama, La Rioja, Spain --Poco a poco 08:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • I'm confused where is the archeological site, and if that whole pic is the site, then what does it show? --SHB2000 11:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The site is the slope in the middle --Poco a poco 20:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Then I'm afraid to say it's not obvious that there's an archeological site unlike the other three. Please do keep up the good photos, though. --SHB2000 05:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • That's no valid argument to oppose. Can't I offer an overview of the site even if you cannot distinguish the different footprints? Please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 07:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    Fair enough, but if I cannot easily find the main subject of the image (which is essentially the key thing in photography), then it's not a QI for me. --SHB2000 10:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment The viewpoint seems pretty random to me; neither the horizontal or vertical are level (the post is tilted). Maybe fixable to some extant? --Trougnouf 16:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough imo. --Trougnouf 09:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Dhole_Walking_Mudumalai_Sep22_A7C_02771.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dhole or Indian wild dog (Cuon alpinus) walking, Mudumalai, Tamil Nadu, India --Tagooty 02:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose I know these animals are endangered, but I think the head is not sharp enough in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek 10:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose sorry, but it's generally not in focus. Try a higher f/stop next time? Thanks. Mike Peel 19:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose per others, lacks sharpness, sorry. BigDom 16:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)