Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 20 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:16-03-31-Bethlehem-RalfR-WAT_5543.jpg[edit]

Yes, here are QCC Quality Categories Candidates. --Ralf Roleček 08:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Insufficiant image description. "Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages." Dustspot. -- Smial 08:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Was hat die Beschreibung mit der Qualität des Bildes zu tun? Andererseits sollte es kein Problem sein, die Kategorie Volkswagen Type 1 hinzuzufügen. Das könnte sogar ein Kritiker freundlicherweise machen. -- Spurzem 16:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 18:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:16-03-31-Hebron-Altstadt-RalfR-WAT_5700.jpg[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:16-03-31-Hebron-Altstadt-RalfR-WAT_5716.jpg[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 18:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campo Erbaria Fabbriche Vecchie di Rialto Venezia.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Campo San Giacometto square and the Fabbriche vecchie in Venice. --Moroder 05:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, motion blur and especially the ghosts spoil the image. --Milseburg 12:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thanks for the review but I'd like some others opinion. The blur regards only the people and is a feature along with ghosts of night photography which I like --Moroder 13:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Ghosts are inevitable when taking long exposure pictures of populIated environments. I personally happen to like them too. I think the picture is pretty good overall. --Xicotencatl 09:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support not too disturbing --Christian Ferrer 13:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ghosts are too visible for me. Archi38 15:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ghosts are acceptable fo me.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 18:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  SupportFor me the ghosts are not interfering--Ermell 18:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 18:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

File:2016-03-12_Adrian_Fritsch_(Gala_des_Dresdner_Sports_2016)_by_Sandro_Halank.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Adrian Fritsch (Dresdner SC 1899; Gala des Dresdner Sports 2016) --Sandro Halank 17:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry; I know that portraits must not be perfectly sharp; but still, too blurred for QI to me --A.Savin 00:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Palauenc05 21:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support as Palauenc05 --Ralf Roletschek 10:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nothing essential blurred. You can get more "sharpness" by several photoshop tools, but probably not out of the box. Perhaps one of those Zeiss Otus lenses may help. -- Smial 11:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  weak As A. Savin: An ordinary L-Prime lens gives you what you need for a studio situation. Even a good L-zoom in the mid-range will give you better results. You don´t need an Otus lens for that. --Hubertl 06:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • moderate  Oppose I am not sure but it could be that the focus is on the nose and therefore in combination with a moderate DoF the face is too soft. Poco a poco 17:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Solid enough for me. Ram-Man 19:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support It is good for me though I would like a tighter crop. -- Spurzem 16:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is even below what the 18-55 kit lens can produce. I guess focus is on the nose?--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 18:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 18:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)