Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 03 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Macaron_with_decoration.jpg[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015_Pendrive_Kingston_32_GB.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pendrive Kingston DataTraveler Ultimate 3.0 G3 32GB --Jacek Halicki 09:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 10:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Quality could be beter in this kind of picture--Lmbuga 23:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    ::  Support Sorry I never view or review this picture, I think that it's not my mistake: the arguments are not appropriate in my opinion to oppose--Lmbuga 19:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see anything wrong with that? --El Grafo 13:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support ground plane is not the first choice but still fine --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 13:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 09:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Christina_Novelli.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Christina Novelli at Nextdoor in Honolulu, Hawaii, May 15, 2014 --Peterchiapperino 00:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too noisy, this camera obviously doesn´t allow this high ISO rate, even with flash. --Hubertl 00:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment A little noise is okay when it comes to concert photos taken in the dark, otherwise there would rarely be a quality concert photo unless taken in the day time. ~~~~
Its not only the noise, the only part, which has an acceptable sharpness, ist the left arm. --Hubertl 09:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like this picture but sorry, too much noise. --Billy 14:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy, and tattoo left arm is completely blurred.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice colours, and composition. Noise is absolutely acceptable, but the face is out of focus, sorry. -- Smial 09:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 19:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Ford A, Bj. 1929 (2011-09-24 3).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Ford A built in 1929 at Moselschiefer-Classic 2011 -- Spurzem 10:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. The part of the red car bottom left is too disturbing. --XRay 11:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    Glaub mir, ich habe hier ausgezeichnete Bilder von Autos mit weit mehr störenden Dingen als diesem gesehen. Aber was soll's. -- Spurzem 12:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Das glaube ich dir ohne Weiteres. Man bemüht sich immer um objektive Kriterien, aber das ist oft genug gar nicht einfach. Das Auto ist schön getroffen, aber ich finde schon, dass der rote Kotflügel ablenkt. Aber insgesamt bin ich doch sehr angetan von deinen Bildern.--XRay 13:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    This is not a German forum !!!--Jebulon 15:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hahahahah I love you Jebulon --Livioandronico2013 16:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • To me the red fender isn't that disturbing, hence:  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 21:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Don´t worry about messing around in german, they just discussed, if a three-minute-egg really needs three minutes or in fact four. I suggest four and a half.--Hubertl 09:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Ja, das habe ich verstanden, aber...--Jebulon 16:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Steindy: I've just fixed your review. Your review said "Good quality", so I replaced the template "o" by "s".--XRay 07:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 19:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Oachkatzlschwoaf_(Eichhörnchen).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination squirrel. By User:AnjaSuess --Neuroxic 07:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Billy69150 07:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, clearly visible dust spots. --Cccefalon 11:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose lighting not QI --Charlesjsharp 18:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry! Poor little squirrel, he's very sad for IQ.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dustspot, squirrel blurred, looks like there is also posterisation. --C messier 19:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 19:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Dubiosis-17.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dubiosis beim dark Munich Festival 2014 --Pistenwolf 08:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Noisy and unsharp around head --Daniel Case 05:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    I do not agree with that, because it is not possible to shoot concerts under live conditions without some noisy, and in this case it is not much.--Pistenwolf 08:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too tight crop on top --Cccefalon 13:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 Comment .... and please resolve redlink cat --Cccefalon 13:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose guitar and hands are too noisy.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent composition and good handling of difficult lighting. Noise is as to be expected. -- Smial 09:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 19:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Red-billed_tropicbird_(Phaethon_aethereus_mesonauta)_with_chick.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Red-billed tropicbird (Phaethon aethereus mesonauta) with chick, Little Tobago --Charlesjsharp 10:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Large area of overexposure in the centre. --Mattbuck 22:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    New version uploaded reducing over-exposure --Charlesjsharp 09:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support good for me now.--Hubertl 19:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor framing (too tight crop), most of subject is unsharp. Alvesgaspar 21:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Alvesgaspar and too tight crop--Lmbuga 22:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose idem.--Jebulon 09:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 09:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Münster, Skulptur -Kardinal von Galen- -- 2014 -- 3985.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture “Clemens August Graf von Galen” (Toni Schneider-Manzell, 1978) at St. Paul's Cathedral, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Overexposure in the sky. --Mattbuck 22:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed I just fixed the small overexposed parts (and CAs). Thanks for your advise.--XRay 06:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support ok now.--Hubertl 19:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 22:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting, subject unsharp. Alvesgaspar 22:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Steindy 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting, subject unsharp. As Alvesgaspar--Lmbuga 22:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 01:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Carcharodus_alceae_-_Mallow_Skipper.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A Mallow Skipper (Carcharodus alceae) feeding nectar of Ground pine (Ajuga chamaepitys) flowers. Canyon Kapıkaya, Karaisalı - Adana, Turkey. --Zcebeci 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Not a great composition, but the subject is focussed. Therefore QI for me. Even when weak. Third opinion appreciated --Hubertl 11:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not really QI for me. --Charlesjsharp 13:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition: The picture needs a crop (composition) and, with the crop, is too litle--Lmbuga 17:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 19:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Head of dead fish.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination head of dead fish, senegal --Jjgodox 19:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Please identify fish --Charlesjsharp 11:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC) identification done Jjgodox 17:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now, though sharpness could be better. --Martin Falbisoner 12:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not quite convinced as to the general JPEG quality. I'd like a few more opinions. --Mattbuck 22:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Mattbuck. Alvesgaspar 22:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I really like this pic. It seems plenty sharp to me and it has a lot of cool insect activity. Bsmalley 03:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It needs more identify (not only Sphyraena sp.) IMO. Not categorized as Sphyraena or Category:Unidentified Sphyraena. Detail could be better and oversharpened IMO--Lmbuga 17:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 19:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)