Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 13 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Stadtbibliothek Nordhausen 2017 - 2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Public Library in Nordhausen, Germany --Vincent Eisfeld 14:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good contrast between light and dark parts. Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 14:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the CA has to be removed. Not a QI otherwise. --Code 11:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Apart the CAs, the image is leaning in, the perspective should be corrected. --Basotxerri 21:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Myocastor coypus 2016 G3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The baby coypu (3) -- George Chernilevsky 19:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The shadow below the hand is much too harsh and distracting. Maybe the "filling light" of Photoshop/Adobe Camera Raw is worth a try? --Grand-Duc 20:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Qi for me. I don´t think the shadow matters that much and is easy to fix --Ermell 22:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ermell 08:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The baby coypu is so cute and the shadow doesn't bother me enough to oppose because the focus is good where it's important. -- Ikan Kekek 10:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Creamy_small_white_(Dixeia_orbona_orbona)_male.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Creamy small white (Dixeia orbona) male, The Gambia --Charlesjsharp 15:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Very close but I will decline for out of focus wings on the butterfly and the high ISO (I understand that is neccessary for the shutter speed however) --EoRdE6 16:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - The left wing is very sharp, so I consider this good quality. It's OK that the right wing has some motion blur. -- Ikan Kekek 21:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Within the tolerance. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 09:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Rotmilan 1336.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rotmilan im Kurpfalz-Park in Wachenheim, Landkreis Bad Dürkheim ----Fischer.H 16:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please correct the category. --Palauenc05 18:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, it's a good picture, but before being promoted the file must be properly described and categorized. --Palauenc05 08:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment I think it's a Milvus milvus.--Famberhorst 16:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture of Milvus sp. Charlesjsharp 15:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose My error, didn't check the very poor cutting out. Charles (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Category OK now, quality image. --Palauenc05 16:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very good. -- Ikan Kekek 06:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because white parts of the feathers at the head are overexposed and there are a lot of blue and green borders at the head, also especially at the contour of the head; the crop of the body (artificial added black background) is not well executed. --Llez 12:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose. Sorry, as Llez and too sharpened, Strong (IMO) CAs at edges. Bad and poor crop of the bird (see note as an example): The edges of the bird are terrible--Lmbuga 16:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very carefully cut out and the dark parts in the BG look like rough brush strokes.--Ermell 20:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)