Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 04 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Milano Duomo 2392.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Duomo di Milano. --C messier 18:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • The front side is very bright and seems overexposed. Is it correctable? -- Spurzem 21:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Checking the histogram shows it isn't overexposed. --C messier 19:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • May be. But the part left of the streetlights is too bright for me. Let's here others. -- Spurzem 06:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 20:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Seems good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 09:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Basotxerri 16:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 18:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Meleager's_blue_(Polyommatus_daphnis)_male_underside_Macedonia.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Meleager's blue (Polyommatus daphnis) male, Republic of Macedonia --Charlesjsharp 10:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Wings are fuzzy and out of focus. --SuperJew 09:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I wouldn't mind a second opnion here. Looking at the hairs around the wings, they are in focus. Charlesjsharp 11:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Subject is clear enough; background doesn't have to be in focus. -- Ikan Kekek 15:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • IMO this image has the same level of focus the images Charles himself objected to recently, so if I'm to be consistent in my judgment as well, it's ...  Oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peulle (talk • contribs)
  •  Neutral Could use some post-processing work, I think. Seems grainy. Guanaco (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --PumpkinSky 12:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)