Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 24 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2016-02-25 Dirk Adams by Olaf Kosinsky-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dirk Adams, Member of Landtag Thüringen --Olaf Kosinsky 23:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Pölkkyposkisolisti 06:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 1) There is a very unpleasant light reflection on his glasses, making the portrait look unfavourable; 2) the image resolution is just barely above 2 mpix, it is too few for a simple studio shot and the used camera provides 24 mpix; 3) there is a discrepancy between the authorship remarks in description vs EXIF data. Sorry --A.Savin 11:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Savin. --Alchemist-hp 08:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Peulle 10:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 18:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Irisbus_Agora_S_n°479_TUB_Victoire_Gare.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bus in Bourg en Bresse --Billy69150 09:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too noisy for a daytime shot, IMO. Why did you set the ISO so high? --Peulle 11:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, 450 ISO is acceptable. The reason is to choose a noisefree or a picture with motion blur. this was a moving bus! --Hubertl 12:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment We should move this to CR for further views and discussion, then. I stand by my opinion; daylight should provide enough light to enable high shutter speed with a lower ISO. --Peulle 14:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
      • ¡Esta tranquilo! It will be moved tomorrow by Mr. QIBot exactly at 6:58 am. --Hubertl 12:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
        • I was right! --Hubertl 12:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 23:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 06:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Alexander Van der Bellen (Stimmen für Van der Bellen, Konzerthaus, 2016-05-16) A01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Alexander Van der Bellen --Tsui 00:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportGood quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree. The crop of the left arm prevents this from being a QI. --Peulle 13:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 07:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 23:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment This is very strange to me; I see images above in the review process with similar cropping that are being declined for too tight crops, yet this one is OK? I don't understand. --Peulle 10:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment More negative space opposite to the side the subject is looking is not favourable.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Tobias "ToMar" Maier: Did you intend to vote or make a comment?
      • I do not intend to extend the voting time by giving another vote as the outcome is, so far, already in my favor.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 06:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Dariadaria (Stimmen für Van der Bellen, Konzerthaus, 2016-05-16) 2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Madeleine Alizadeh aka Dariadaria --Tsui 00:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 06:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree. Unacceptable right crop, and not quite sharp. --Peulle 12:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Face is sharp enough. QI for me.--Ermell 10:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 23:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 06:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment More negative space opposite to the side the subject is looking is not favourable.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 08:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Tobias "ToMar" Maier: Did you intend to vote or make a comment? --Peulle 17:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
      • @Peulle: I do not intend to extend the voting time by giving another vote as the outcome is, so far, already in my favor.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Somewhat low DOF. -- Smial 11:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 06:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Drammen Tollbod sett fra Holmen.jpeg[edit]

  • Nomination The old toll station in Drammen Harbour. --Peulle 11:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment I see some problems, but I cannot check them without exif informations. --Hubertl 12:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Hubertl: I don't know how to fix that. I have RAW files, and wanted to upload lossless files to avoid compression. Didn't realize this would mean the metadata would be unavailable. --Peulle 15:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Hubertl: New version (.jpeg with data) uploaded; can you check it now? --Peulle 23:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough--Ermell 06:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 06:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Drammen Havn sett fra Holmen.jpeg[edit]

  • Nomination: The old Drammen Harbour seen from the opposite side of the river. --Peulle 11:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment I see some problems, but I cannot check them without exif informations. --Hubertl 12:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hubertl: New version (.jpeg with data) uploaded; can you check it now? --Peulle 23:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 06:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Holmenbrua bilbru søndre.jpeg[edit]

  • Nomination Road bridge between Holmen and the southern side of the Drammen river. --Peulle 11:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment I see some problems, but I cannot check them without exif informations. --Hubertl 12:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Hubertl: New version (.jpeg with data) uploaded; can you check it now? --Peulle 23:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • a week  Oppose My eyes are going to the left part of this photo and this is not the sharpest part. I think it would have been better if you would have walked a bit to the right for taking this photo; in this position it is also better to use such a high f-value. I am not able to know how far this is possible. --Michielverbeek 08:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Hubertl: Moving the camera in post-production is obviously not possible, but I can crop the image if needed. As for f-values, I have several versions; should it be higher or lower? --Peulle 14:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 06:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Cartuchohp122.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Inkjet cartridge Tricolor HP 122 --Ezarate 20:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 16:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: Yellow fringes and well ... did you glued the cardridge to the wall to take a photo? (position/shadow/perspective irritating, you better did a clean cut-out) --Cccefalon 06:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I upload a new version without yellow fringes and perspective fixed, I'm trying to isolate the cartridge cleaning out the background but it's very difficult wihout erase parts of the object, Cccefalon and Ralf thanks for the review! Ezarate 22:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
      • You possibly missed the fine humour in my review: You should also rotate the whole image 90° ccw. During the photo session, the cardridge was laying on a canvas and was not attached with the left side to a wall --Cccefalon 07:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Cccefalon. --Hubertl 05:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image should be rotated. --XRay 06:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Thanks for rotating. --XRay 07:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment uploaded a new version --Ezarate 23:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 06:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)