Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 21 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Retrato_do_índio_Muxuruna.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Portrait of Indian MuxurunaEnglish --The Photographer 14:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Special.--Famberhorst 15:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per my vote during the FPC process: the crop is not good, and probably not the original. It needs a discussion IMO.--Jebulon 19:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop cut the top of the head Archi38 15:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This seems to be the original (although at lower resolution), so it's cropped and grayscaled. --Tsungam 12:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Delleboersterheide – Catspoele Natuurgebied van It Fryske Gea. Omgeving van het heideveld 045.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Delleboersterheide – Catspoele Nature of It Fryske Gea in the Netherlands. Around the heath.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, trees and sky are too blurred --Michielverbeek 10:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • *  Neutral {{s}} --Hubertl 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC) --Hubertl 03:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somewhat overprocessed, sorry --A.Savin 20:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 06:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appears more like a painting. Overprocessed for me.--Ermell 07:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is not a QI, there is no detail, too much denoising. Poco a poco 17:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ram-Man 19:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 16:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral This is a tough one. I like the composition, the colors. A significant effort has been done to fight the purple fringing, softness and the noise that was present in the original version. Unfortunately, this has caused the fine details to be washed out. Hell yeah, I can literally feel the pain of the author here, since I am regularly running into the same kind of mess with my 650D. Hendric Stattmann 12:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Ashby-de-la-Zouch Castle, William Lord Hastings's Tower from the south.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ashby-de-la-Zouch Castle, William Lord Hastings's Tower --DeFacto 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --СССР 23:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree --Ermell 06:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree too; poor detail --A.Savin 17:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI --Palauenc05 05:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as others. In fact, no Exif-data is a no-go for me too. --Hubertl 17:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 Comment Exif-data is a nice-to-have, not mandantory. In some cases they can help analysing technical problems, that is true. On the other hand, they can also easily lead to prejudices, according to the motto: "Oh, a compact camera, that is surely no good". Some photographers remove the data in principle, because they allow conclusions to private life circumstances. That should be accepted. --Smial 07:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have no problem with deleting the date and time. --Hubertl 20:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • weak  Support just at the limit, I would have crop a bit at top and a bit at bottom too --Christian Ferrer 17:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Top crop is improveable, detail quality is OK with regard to the resolution. --Tuxyso 07:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose My rule of thumb when dealing with resolution issues at QIC is to scale down to 2 MP and check for any sign of unsharpness. Unfortunately, even at that resolution the grass looks like mush. --King of Hearts 00:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough --Michielverbeek 05:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Who cares for the grass ;-) --Moroder 07:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Barely. Ram-Man 23:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do care about details in a structure and here the details are not good. Also there are artefacts in some of the darker areas. --Cccefalon 08:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others --Lmbuga 16:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support In my eyes good enough for QI --Ralf Roletschek 10:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support For me too --Livioandronico2013 08:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Just ok Poco a poco 17:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 16:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 18:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support There are valid points to criticize in this image, but all-in-all, this picture is QI for me. Hendric Stattmann 12:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki 18:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sufficient quality. --Basotxerri 17:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 13 support (excluding the nominator), 8 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)