Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 15 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:20170610_Kościół_w_Szewnie_8236.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Nicholas church in Szewna --Jakubhal 20:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •  Oppose Tilted, CA, compression issues.--Peulle 08:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Appears o.k. to me --Ermell 12:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Peulle, and the grass seems overprocessed --Cvmontuy 16:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per Ermell--Manfred Kuzel 04:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, blurry noise reduction combined with oversharpening result in ugly artifacts. I would recommend to check postprocessing. I own the same camera, the K5-II is capable to catch images with less noise artifacts even at ISO 1100. --Smial 09:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The picture is not tilted, I have straighten it up. My guess is that some of you have such impression because right tower is little higher. I couldn't find any visible CAs, although of course, there may be some minor. But you are right that there is something wrong with the grass and the edges on the wall. But the real problem is that the RAW file does not look much better. Yes, I have done sharpening, but not so much. I think that focus is more at the beginning of the hedge cropped out from this photo, and less on the walls and the back of the lawn that you can see here. Maybe it is the cause. Anyway I withdrawn. Thank you all for your comments. ---- Jakubhal 21:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   ----Ermell 13:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spotted_ciliate_blue_(Anthene_larydas)_underside.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Spotted ciliate blue (Anthene larydas), Ghana --Charlesjsharp 11:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 14:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 1,9 MB, technically a bit lacking to 2 MB. Tournasol7 20:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I don't understand @Tournasol7: what you mean. The minimum size is 2MP not 2MB. Charlesjsharp 20:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 05:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry, my mistake. In this case good quality. Tournasol7 20:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 11:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Veitenstein_Lußberg_0237.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Veitenstein in the nature park Haßberge --Ermell 08:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good for me. --Rbrechko 08:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree Here again, too much HDR. Highlights turn gray. --MirandaAdramin 09:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Perhaps not as good as the other two, but still a QI to me. You may be right, but also, perhaps the sky was a little gray that day? Anyway, it looks good enough to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As MirandaAdramin. Detail and collor are not good--Lmbuga 22:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Manfred Kuzel 12:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Milseburg (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Tournasol7 21:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 11:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)