Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 27 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:ZSL_London_-_Ring-tailed_lemur_(01).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) in London Zoo. --KTC 16:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Feet too unsharp. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 16:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
     Support Feet are sharp enough for me. I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 19:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
     Weak support --Lmbuga 20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
     Support looks fine --Denkmalhelfer 18:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 10:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice portrait. Alvesgaspar 11:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 12:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:2015-03-22_Air_Berlin_Takeoff_at_Berlin-Tegel_by_sebaso.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Air Berlin Takeoff at Berlin-Tegel, Boeing 737 D-ABKT --Sebaso 19:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, the sky is overexposed--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 19:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment please check again on commons detail page with white background - its not overexposed. --Sebaso 20:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK! In that case, I'll adjust my judgment in the discussion.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 20:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well it does seem over-exposed to me too. --Charlesjsharp 20:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well, the sky isn't overexposed, it is just a dull day. But - this picture shows actually only sky. And the parts that aren't sky are overprocessed with strong artifacts of what I assume might be caused of oversharpening naturally blurred areas (blurred by turbulent air) --LC-de 11:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 22:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Pennsylvania Route 487 northbound south of Stillwater.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Pennsylvania Route 487. Jakec 18:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeSorry Jakec below 4mpx, there is new rules (see QI talk page) --Christian Ferrer 14:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    • It was nominated before that rule. Jakec 11:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA(s), poor detail, 2,123 × 1,504 pixels (see notes)--Lmbuga 16:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'd like to add unclear composition to the lmbugas opposing arguments - beside the resolution one which is still not agreed. Composition should receive more attention than it gets now as this says more about quality than the resolution. --LC-de 07:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 22:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Störche Steinwedel (3).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Two young white storks. --Hydro 07:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 11:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I'm not convinced about the sharpness here --Poco a poco 14:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose looks not sharp --Denkmalhelfer 12:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a sharpened version. --Hydro 19:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Unbalanced IMO, but...--Lmbuga 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 22:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Stryhanka Tyshycia Windbreak.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Windbreak between Stryhanka and Tyshycia villages. --Mykola Swarnyk 05:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC) *  Comment please do a perspective correction..! --Hubertl 06:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ DoneMykola Swarnyk 07:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 08:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose below 4mpx --Christian Ferrer 13:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Bigger size added. --Mykola Swarnyk 15:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC) ok but it's a bit unsharp with lack of fine details, sorry --Christian Ferrer 16:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Really, too unsharp. CAs (see note as example). Underexposed areas IMO. Sorry, nothing is QI IMO: The road is cropped or too tight at left (poor composition)--Lmbuga 17:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, haven´t seen that you´ve already answered, Christian! --Hubertl 13:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 Comment I totally accepting that. Thanks for revision! Mykola Swarnyk 22:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 22:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Benton Township, Columbia County, Pennsylvania in April (1).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Benton Township, Columbia County, Pennsylvania. Jakec 18:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 00:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose below 4mpx --Christian Ferrer 15:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Christian Ferrer the limiti for 4 mpx started from 14 April --Livioandronico2013 19:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Yes and we are the 19 April and the image is still candidate, until it's writen in the guideline it's the same rules for all candidates in this page, I was not in favor of this rules and I'm sorry that Jakec was not invited for to vote and that the vote be stopped so fast. --Christian Ferrer 08:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    But surely if it was nominated before, it would be subject to the grandfather clause. Jakec 18:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Neutral --Christian Ferrer 21:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor detail (see note). Too noise reduction IMO. CAs (see notes). 2,256 × 1,504 pixels (not 4 megapixels). It seems dark IMO. A bit cyan--Lmbuga 17:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose agree to Lmbuga --Denkmalhelfer 18:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 22:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Irisbus Cristalis ETB 12 n°115 TCL Place Carnot.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Trolleybus in Limoges --Billy69150 15:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Tilt/perspective issues. --C messier 10:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done --Billy69150 10:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Suffers from pincushion distortion on the left, and there is a lot of almost empty space above the subject. Mattbuck 07:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Why is this image in CR? --C messier 09:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Pincushion distortion on the left. The car of the bottom right is disturbing--Lmbuga 17:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Minor issues but very good dynamic with this bus. Kvardek du 19:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Pincushion distortion not fixed. --C messier 06:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as for lmbuga -- Smial 11:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 22:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Sea Fishing, Batticaloa.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fishermen return to seashore --AntanO 18:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Touzrimounir 18:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: Colour noise in the sea part and posterisation in the sky. --Cccefalon 19:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't see any relevant chromatic noise or posterization. Alvesgaspar 14:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great composition but Cccefalon is right. On the left side in the sky there is some heavy posterization. It's really a pity. Otherwise the picture was FP-worthy in my eyes. I don't know if that's fixable. --Code 09:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose coclour noise on dark parts. --Denkmalhelfer 12:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Colour noise in the sea part and posterisation in the sky. As Cccefalon--Lmbuga 17:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterized sun evident at thumbnail size. Daniel Case 22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 22:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Hoverfly April 2014-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A female hoverfly (Epistrophe eligans) on a Narrow leaved Cistus flower. The only one fly of this species that I have seen in Portugal. Alvesgaspar 21:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looking at Wikipedia etc. I think this is a different species. --Charlesjsharp 12:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Info No, it is not. It was identified by an expert (diptera.info) Alvesgaspar 19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Alvesgaspar: : I think it would be relevant to add details about the identification process on the file page, preferably with a link to the discussion where the identification is established. -- Slaunger 16:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • @Slaunger: Done, it is not possible to insert links into this template. Gerard Pennards is an expert on syrphid flies -- Alvesgaspar 13:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
        • @Alvesgaspar: I do not understand; what do you mean by you cannot add links 'into this template'? It is the file page I am referring to. That is the place to keep such informative details about the identification, and I do not see that any such information has been added to the file page. -- Slaunger 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Ahh, you had added it on the talk page? I have now integrated it into the file description. -- Slaunger 18:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support the subject is sharp. The identification seems valid. --Hubertl 16:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 21:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)