Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 27 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Museo_Field,_Chicago,_Illinois,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-20,_DD_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois, USA --Poco a poco 20:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose see note - i don´t know what it is, but this part of the pic is not very nice --Rolf H. 04:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    That is a bush. I have uploaded a new version with less denoising, please, let me know what you think Poco a poco 19:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment In comparison with the File:Museo Field, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 01.jpg it does not look good, but I don´t want to decide alone - second Opinion? --Rolf H. 10:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The File:Museo Filed .. is concentrating on the building. Here the main focus is the pole. And IMHO this pole is good quality

--ArishG 13:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  •  Support ok for me. --Hubertl 06:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cccefalon 15:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 02:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Larus michahellis, Kavala, Greece 2013.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis), Kavala, Greece --Biso 09:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)]] 08:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Oversharpened and posterized areas. --Cccefalon 10:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it is QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 10:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If this is QI, I'm bald--Livioandronico2013 14:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose Oversharpened and too small DoF. --XRay 17:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 08:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Thomisus lobosus 08501.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Thomisus lobosus --Vengolis 04:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 04:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not too bright or overexposed? Please discuss. -- Spurzem 21:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No QI for me. -- Spurzem 09:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. It isn't burned, but highlights could be reduced. --C messier 14:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 02:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Robert Seidel VIS2015.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Video artist Robert Seidel at VIS 2015. --Tsui 22:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. The right ear is very unsharp IMHO --Ezarate 23:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. The right ear is not the subject. See f/2.8 --Hubertl 03:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Hubertl,DoF is good for this kind of pictures --Livioandronico2013 16:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support good DoF. --Ralf Roletschek 07:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 08:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)