Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 27 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Cupola_detail_Kunsthistorisches_Museum_Vienna.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, cupola detail. Austria --PetarM 12:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 14:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: There are sharpening artefacts. I marked an area to make my concern clear. --Cccefalon 09:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe that it is not a featured image but it is QI for me. -- Spurzem 09:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Cccfalon. --Hubertl 10:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Σπάρτακος 20:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good exposure, sharpness, no noise. Some detail lost through denoising and some sharpening artefacts, but definitely not bad enough to decline a QI promotion. --Hendric Stattmann 14:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality, I can't see really why it couldn't be a QI. --El Golli Mohamed 09:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 08:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Rani Pokari.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Rani Pokhari (by Bijaya2043) --बिप्लब आनन्द 11:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 23:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: Magenta CA and no appropriate categorisation. --Cccefalon 09:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice subject, composition, colors. Sharpness OK, CA needs fixing, after which it could be promoted. --Hendric Stattmann 14:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 08:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Lati Koili Temple.JPG[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 08:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Anacamptis_pyramidalis_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination An inflorescence Anacamptis pyramidalis (from Switzerland) --Pmo83 10:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very beautiful, but regrettably blurry stalk and bracts. Denis Barthel 09:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment According to the guideline the main subject has to be in focus, here the inflorescence is the subject and is perfectly in focus --Pmo83 12:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Yes, that's the guideline. According to the description, the nomination description, the filename and one of the categories this is a picture of A. pyramidalis and not only of a part of it. Please fix the descriptions and names else, thank you. Denis Barthel 23:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I updated the descriptions. It's already in 'Anacamptis_pyramidalis_-_inflorescences' category which seems to be correct. In order to rename the file I'd need to contact an admin, but IMO it's not worth it. --Pmo83 07:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you! Denis Barthel 18:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is not a support nor an oppose -- it is a very pretty image which I wanted to support, but I can't because it is out of focus at the tip especially. There must have been just the slightest of breezes. -- RaboKarbakian 07:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very beautiful colors, but a definite lack of sharpness. And yes I know what PITA it can be to achieve sufficient depth-of-field and to avoid motion blur on such shots! --Hendric Stattmann 14:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose if this picture has some sharpness on the front blossoms, it would be acceptable. But it hasn´t. Therefore no QI for me.--Hubertl 20:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 08:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)