Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 27 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:VirgenMaria-SanJose-NiñoJesús-BasilicaLujan.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of Saint Mary, Saint Joseph and Jesus in Nuestra Señora de Luján Basilica --Ezarate 22:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: Unfortunate crop of a part of the statue (the accessoire in Joseph's hand) --Cccefalon 06:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks, --Cccefalon 07:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done --Ezarate 13:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good now. W.carter 14:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 11:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Dzembronia_26-110-5020_DSC_2285.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Dzembronia mountain, Carpathian National Park. By User:Haidamac --Ата 18:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too small resolution for such kind of motif and a 24 MPix camera --Cccefalon 06:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support resolution as others QI --Grtek 11:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support +1 --Ralf Roletschek 14:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's this "easy to take" thing. Some downscaling is absolutely ok, not every photographer has high end lenses and images taken with usual kit lenses look mostly much better if downscaled for some amount. With my old *istDs, a 6 MPix-CCD camera I often used about (linear) 80%. For reasons. But this image has been taken with a rather modern camera and not the worst lens, so I cannot accept a (linear) downscaling to less than 55% resp. less than 30% in pixel count. --Smial 09:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I too think that such a motíf should have a higher resolution, but it's not strictly required in the rules. I'm more concerned with the fact that there is some kind of camera shake or something in the lower section (see note).--Peulle 14:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment seems to me as moving cow... --Grtek 20:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support due to fine composition, despite small resolution. --Palauenc05 19:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Verticals are leaning in --Uoaei1 20:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 11:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)