Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 24 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2017-02-05_Andrea_Vötter_by_Sandro_Halank–6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Andrea Vötter beim Rennrodel-Weltcup 2017 in Oberhof --Sandro Halank 10:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, sorry --Moroder 11:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Perhaps not very sharp but sharp enough. But I would like the photo not so bright and with more contrast. -- Spurzem 14:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft for a portrait IMO. Nice image otherwise.--Peulle 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Ford_Transit_BW_2016-07-17_13-14-16.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ford Transit --Berthold Werner 16:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very good quality. --Peulle 18:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very good? The front of the car is too bright especially the windscreen. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed I'm afraid. --A.Savin 11:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed... --Basotxerri 14:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 15:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Elgea - Señal de conducto de gas 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Underground gas pipeline sign in the Elgea mountain range. Álava, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 16:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • {{o}} Sorry, too tight at top and chromatic aberrations (see note)--Lmbuga 18:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done You spotted well the CAs, I hadn't seen them. Regarding the crop, it's tight but IMO acceptable so I'd like to hear some other opinions. --Basotxerri 05:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Crop is too tight for real comfort but IMO OK for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 12:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --A.Savin 11:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 05:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment chromatic aberrations and rule of thirds. Sorry: I'm sure that I don't know what is QI, thanks and goodbye--Lmbuga 19:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 01:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Ford Mondeo Mk V.svg[edit]

  • Nomination Car ford --The Photographer 23:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 16:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment The description could be more specific; that's a Mondeo.--Peulle 20:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: Of course you're right, I should have seen this, sorry. ✓ Done I've had a moment, so I've fixed it. --Basotxerri 07:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support now. --Peulle 09:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality --Sandro Halank 10:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 15:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

File:2016-06-10_Westerstede,_Rotes_Rad_(freddy2001).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Motorradvordereifen --Freddy2001 09:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Leider kann ich nicht sehen, das dies scharf oder fokusiert ist. --Peulle 10:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support. Wie verschieden doch die Eindrücke sind. Ich sehe das mittlere Rad, um das es wohl geht, scharf. -- Spurzem 11:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Quite apart from this German-language debate about sharpness, I find the blown-out, blobby portion of a house in the background disturbing. -- Ikan Kekek 02:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per Ikan Kekek, --Cvmontuy 12:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'd rather say it is the cropped bottom of the weel and the other weel up front disturbing, not the background --Moroder 08:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle, sorry. --Sandro Halank 10:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Der Meinung von Spurzem schließe ich mich vollinhaltlich an. Gerade die vorhandenen Unschärfen abseits des Hauptmotives lenken den Blick auf dieses rote Rad.--Manfred Kuzel 11:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main subject not nearly sharp enough / Hauptmotiv nicht annähernd scharf genug für QI --DXR 07:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Das Bild lebt von den Unschärfen. Unschärfe stört nicht und sollte auch nicht abgeschnitten sein, das ist Teil der Bildkomposition, die den Blick aufs Wesentliche konzentriert. --Ralf Roletschek 10:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC) PS: es ist ein Vorderrad, kein Vorderreifen.
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 01:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Common_false_head_(Oxylides_faunus_faunus)_female_underside.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Common false head (Oxylides faunus faunus) female, Ghana --Charlesjsharp 12:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment Some noise reduction needed, IMO.--Peulle 15:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm looking at the eye and torso and still think it's a bit grainy. Can anything be done?--Peulle 21:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Not without loss of detail. I only did more on the background. Charlesjsharp 10:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I'm leaning towards  Oppose, but I'm really unsure as to how much the noise should count so I'd like further opinions.--Peulle 13:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - First, that's quite an extraordinary-looking creature! I would probably oppose this for FP, but I think that enough of the butterfly is clear enough for QI. There is very good clarity of the antennae, head, feet, and probably 4/5 of the visible parts of the wings. The other 1/5 and the false head are noisy. And the whole photo looks pretty good at full screen on my laptop. -- Ikan Kekek 05:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support -I think this photo is good for QI, but agree with Ikan, not for FP so I support it here. PumpkinSky 21:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great subject, but too much noise, not QI IMO; as Peulle--Lmbuga 22:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --W.carter 08:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)