Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 15 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Pedestrian_overpass_at_Hamilton_VTA_station.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pedestrian overpass at Hamilton VTA station. --Grendelkhan 06:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • First of all: this image is not that bad! At first I wanted to promote it because apart from the slight noise the image quality is quite decent and I really like the composition. But then I saw that the right arc is a bit oversharpened and the left arc has got some visible texture loss. So: weak  Oppose. However, feel free to move this to CR perhaps others think that's good enough. --Basotxerri 15:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Moving to CR. Grendelkhan 23:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Basotxerri, I expect you're right in your analysis, but I like the composition and the picture looks good enough to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi Ikan Kekek, please don't get me wrong. Maybe I've been too critical in this case but the image itself is really nice. --Basotxerri 15:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Milseburg 12:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 16:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Merfeld,_Dülmener_Wildpferde_in_der_Wildbahn_--_2016_--_4718.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dülmen ponies in the Wildbahn in the Merfelder Bruch (COE-004) in the morning fog at sunrise, Merfeld, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very soft/noisy (high ISO) at full screen. Charlesjsharp 20:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment I've tried an additional noise reduction. --XRay 04:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I didn't see the previous version of this photo. There is still noise, but the horse itself is clear and I love the composition, which looks like it should be in a fairytale or some other children's story about a horse, and I don't think that this degree of noise in vegetation that's not the subject of the composition and part of a hazy dreamscape should cause the picture to be declined. -- Ikan Kekek 06:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't looking at the background. There is little definition in the horse's head. Charlesjsharp 11:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Enough definition for me. I see sinews on the front of its face and folds in its nostrils. The photo's a little soft, but that's the entire feeling of the photo. It's not like your sharp photos that are useful for identification and scientific/encyclopedic analysis - I really don't think that's the intention with this horse portrait. -- Ikan Kekek 02:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful image and good quality -- Spurzem 22:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 16:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Προφήτης Ηλίας Μήλου 5532.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Moonrise over Milos, Greece. --C messier 13:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very nice scenery but too unsharp IMO --Ermell 20:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think this is worth a discussion. Is the picture noisy and/or foggy? It's a foggy twilight with the moon rising, and the picture is sort of literally atmospheric. I think that under the circumstances, it's sharp enough for what it's depicting. -- Ikan Kekek 05:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think that the missing sharpness is made by haze. Sorry, too unsharp for a QI. --Basotxerri 19:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 20:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_cmentarz_komunalny,_krzyż_pokutny_01.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Cemetery in Kłodzko, stone cross 1 --Jacek Halicki 08:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Cars in the background ruin the composition, IMO. --Yerpo 09:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  CommentI disagree, QI isn't FP --Jacek Halicki 10:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree to Jacek. --Berthold Werner 10:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's not FP but such a composition is no QI for me. -- Spurzem 15:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 14:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Ermell 12:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Jakubhal 17:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 16:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)