Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 19 2024

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Close_wing_Nectaring_of_Rapala_manea_(Hewitson,_1863)_-_Slate_Flash_WLB_IMG_1701a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing Nectaring of Rapala manea (Hewitson, 1863) - Slate Flash. By User:Sandipoutsider --Atudu 18:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --MS Sakib 23:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I have to disagree. Subject is blurry. --Nacaru 00:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Nacaru. Too blurry, unortunately --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. --Smial 12:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Extremely overprocessed with practically no detail, and still it's blurry. --Plozessor 04:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Plozessor 04:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Cat_playing_guard.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination house cat --KaiBorgeest 21:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Acroterion 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I love cats, but the photo shown here is not a quality image for me. The right side of the animal is too dark, out of focus, and the background is crooked. A pity. But perhaps it's debatable that I'm looking at it wrong. -- Spurzem 09:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I saw the composition and mood as compensation. --Acroterion 14:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. QIC is mostly about technical quality, so "mood" isn't something I'm emphasizing in this case.--Peulle 08:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. Blurred by noise reduction combined with oversharpening. Or was it the built-in artificial intelligence that went wild and wrong when it tried to simulate a shallow depth of field in portrait mode? I don't think the exposure, lighting, composition and colors are bad at all. --Smial 10:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, great scene, looking really good in the preview, but technical quality is poor (probably due to a combination of low f-stop, high noise, high noise reduction and AI sharpening by the smartphone). --Plozessor 14:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cat is not sharp at all --Jakubhal 05:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 15:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)