Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 21 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Moon,_Refractor_(1886)_3,500_mm,_Kuffner-Observatory,_Vienna-1071_2-Bearbeitet.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canon macro hammer green.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Macro shot taken with a slim point-and-shoot in 2010. Note rich greens. -- B137 16:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose sorry, but the hammer is not sharp, the leaves in the background are -- Elrond 17:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I thought the photo was more about the greenery, would it help if I didn't call it "macro" so it's clear that the foreground isn't intended to be the focus? Changing to discuss, just want to give it a run for its money. B137 23:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    It wouldn't help because then I would criticize the composition. It's a photo. If you have to explain first, what it should show, it's spoiled. --LC-de 11:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Apart from the unclear composition/subject (the hammer is way to dominant not to be the main subject, the description at the file page doen't help either), the photo is full of jpeg artifacts. --C messier 18:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Fuchsia 'Helena' 03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fuchsia 'Helena'.
    Famberhorst 05:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose sorry, not sharp enough --Rolf H. 06:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I suggest a crop,the foreground is sharp Livioandronico2013 09:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC))

File:Admirality_Saint_Petersburg_SE_facade_detail.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of SE facade of Admiralty building, Saint Petersburg in Saint Petersburg --Moroder 04:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The shadowed trees ruins the photo. Even if you did not have the choice it's not visually a QI IMO. --Christian Ferrer 06:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  CommentI disagree. I like the composition which makes sense due to the proximity of the park, you agree. Let's see some other's opinion. Cheers --Moroder 07:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment No, Wolfgang, it isn’t especially good photo, not a QI, I think. The nearly black trees aren't a good visual idea for a photo depicting a bright sunny day. And the perspective of the building... It is correct from a formal point of view, but you must admit that the building looks rather unnatural... Yours respectfully, Dmitry Ivanov 19:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Per Christian. --Medium69 12:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose One of the main aspects of such architecture is symmetry. This photo does not do justice to the matter. -- Smial 12:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Panthera_tigris_(Tigre_blanc)_-_391.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panthera tigris (White tiger) in the ZooParc de Beauval in Saint-Aignan-sur-Cher, France. -- Medium69 01:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose It is a lot of logs, it isn't enough of tiger. Weak composition. Not QI IMO. --SKas 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad composition.--El Golli Mohamed 21:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Vista_de_Ágreda,_España,_2015-01-02,_DD_022-024_PAN.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Ágreda, Spain --Poco a poco 10:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 13:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural geometry and unsharpness, especially on the right part of the image. -- Alvesgaspar 09:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Alvesgaspar: I'd like to understand why are you targeting my pictures. Poco a poco 18:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Not your pictures in partcular, Poco a poco. But I'm more sensitive to the work of someone who I respect as a photographer. Very often it seems I am the only one daring to notice obvious flaws and flagrant lack of quality in some of your photos. Why you nominate them, I can't understand. -- Alvesgaspar 23:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Poco a poco: He is a frequent criticism but while remaining impartial independently of the author.--Medium69 12:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Medium69 12:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 18:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Nasua_nasua_(Coati_roux)_-_460.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nasua nasua (South American coati) in the ZooParc de Beauval in Saint-Aignan-sur-Cher, France. --Medium69 00:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support DoF a bit small but ok IMO --Christian Ferrer 06:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. Charlesjsharp 09:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Charlesjsharp.--Ermell 22:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp.--El Golli Mohamed 21:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Giraffa_camelopardalis_(Girafe)_-_378.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Giraffa camelopardalis (Giraffe) in the ZooParc de Beauval in Saint-Aignan-sur-Cher, France. --Medium69 11:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportOk for me, a head of a Girafe is a minor issue ;-) --Hubertl 12:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Taken from too far below the animal and no feet visible. ~~~~ Anonymous vote invalid. --Palauenc05 08:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support It may occasionally happen that even photographers have to look up to a giraffe! Good for me. --Palauenc05 23:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong focus, should be on the head. -- Smial 12:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Taken from too far below the animal and no feet visible. Charlesjsharp 09:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Smial.--Ermell 12:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support As the other supporters. --Milseburg 14:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Heads are totally overestimated --Hubertl 14:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Head out of focus. Alvesgaspar 10:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support For this kind of pictures is good for me and for Hubertl Livioandronico2013 09:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus not on the head, not sharp enough.--El Golli Mohamed 21:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)