Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 04 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Common_sandpiper_(Actitis_hypoleucos)_Standlake.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Common sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos), Standlake Pit 60, Oxfordshire --Charlesjsharp 21:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Very good -- Spurzem 21:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    Location category is a MUST for organisms. --Jkadavoor 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    No it isn't. Charlesjsharp 17:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
     Support now as location cat is added. Jkadavoor 02:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 14:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Baked_apple_02.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Baked apple. --Andrey Korzun 08:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Bad white balance SkywalkerPL 09:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done fixed. Uploaded a new version --Andrey Korzun 22:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see the new version of file --Andrey Korzun 13:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support - Much better now.Crisco 1492 06:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support - I like it. --Tsungam 06:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks not quite like something I would like to eat, but quality is OK for me. --A.Savin 15:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted KTC 23:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Student from UNY reading short story by Evi Idawati 2015-06-08 06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Student from Yogyakarta State University performing a dramatic reading. Crisco 1492 14:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose reflection from flashlight --Moroder 17:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment No flash used (check the EXIF data). It is the reflection of stage lighting off the perspiration on her face. --Crisco 1492 12:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Creepy and fascinating at the same time. Given the circumstances I think it qualifies as QI. --Tsungam 12:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For others --Σπάρτακος 22:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 14:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Beyenburger Klosterkirche 0016.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Beyenburger Klosterkirche --Atamari 17:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment nice picture, but tilted cw. --Hubertl 17:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done i rotate a little bit --Atamari 18:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline OK now. --Hubertl 18:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Purple fringe on the top of the building and the on the leaves. Not sharp. --Bgag 19:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment The description “Ennepetal..” cannot be correct.--~~~~
  •  Comment Ennepetal is the location of the photographer --Atamari 21:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment renamed.--Hubertl 05:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp and CA in full view --A.Savin 15:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --A.Savin 14:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Temple_of_Apollo,_Didyma_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Temple of Apollo in Didyma, Turkey --Bgag 14:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too overprocessed, oversharpened. Please try to reprocess from the Raw-Original. --Hubertl 15:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Not done in over a week --Daniel Case 15:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would like to have another opinion. --Bgag 03:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened. Good shot otherwise, but in a current state it's sub-standard. --SkywalkerPL 21:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --A.Savin 14:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Temple_of_Apollo,_Didyma_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Temple of Apollo in Didyma, Turkey --Bgag 14:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too overprocessed, oversharpened. Please try to reprocess from the Raw-Original. --Hubertl 15:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Not done in over a week --Daniel Case 15:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would like to have another opinion. --Bgag 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose badly oversharpened. Good shot otherwise, but in a current state it's sub-standard. --SkywalkerPL 21:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 14:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Bulgarian_folk_dancers_and_musicians_in_Brussels_cropped.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Bulgarian folk dancers after a performance in Brussels. (another version of this image (before cropping) was nominated a few days ago) --Tropcho 14:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose It doesn´t make sense to crop an already promoted picture to get a second quality image from the same source. --Hubertl 15:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I'm aware of a rule that says that there cannot be two featured versions of the same image (only the better version retains featured status). Is there a similar rule for quality images? Tropcho 15:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a crop is significantly bringing out a detail or is giving another meaning to the photo, then I could accept the extract as a new photo. But here, it is just a cut of few pixels on top and on bottom. This should not be the new approach of adding more QI to Commons imo. --Cccefalon 06:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Hubertl and Cccefalon. --Tsungam 06:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 14:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Phyteuma, Ariège, France.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Phyteuma, Ariège, France --Rorolinus 09:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, sorry. --Cccefalon 10:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagre. Imo it is QI --Moroder 11:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cccefalon is always right--Livioandronico2013 12:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, bad DoF. --SkywalkerPL 21:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined KTC 23:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Lotus corniculatus, Ariège, France.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Lotus corniculatus, Ariège, France --Rorolinus 20:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Atamari 22:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but this is too noisy, maybe over processed. --Hockei 13:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I think, it´s acceptable as it is. --Hubertl 16:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's good. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's not understandable that these noisiness does not lead to the devaluation. You can see the artefacts most clearly at the bottom. It could be a much better work. You must take your time for this. As it is it is not QI even against other opinions. --Hockei 07:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Hockei --Moroder 21:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 14:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Mairie d' Hellemmes-Lille.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mairie d'Hellemmes-Lille Nord.- France.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 08:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, no QI, artifacts (oversharpening? compression?) and picture looks distored (shouldn't the clock be round?) --Tsungam 07:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I think, the clock can´t be round from this position, IMO the artefacts are fixable, also the slight perspective distortion --Hubertl 07:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done thank you for your advices. The artefacts are fixed, and the slight perspective distortion corrected.- --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 20:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Subject cover by tree, barrel distortion, seems to be overexposed and... overprocessed? Or is it just camera that produces such an oddly noisy and undetailed images at ISO 100? Hard to tell, but it really doesn't look as good as it should have at ISO 100. --SkywalkerPL (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 14:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)