Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 04 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Puente_de_la_Constitución_de_1812,_Cádiz,_España,_2015-12-08,_DD_28-32_HDR.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Constitution of 1812 Bridge, Cádiz, Spain --Poco a poco 06:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Nice attempt, but no, unsharp and too soft.--Jebulon 08:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment True, but ✓ new version uploaded, IMHO acceptable now, let's discuss --Poco a poco 17:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it, for me an interesting scenery, well done. --Hubertl 12:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, better indeed. But not enough, sorry.--Jebulon 14:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better than the first version.--Ermell 21:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 20:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. I love the light reflections and all in all, the image is promotable. Yet, a Canon 5DS-R is capable of providing a boatload of 50MPix, we only get less than 4 of them. Also, I see downscaling (aliasing) artifacts at the lower portion of the bridge support ropes and strange HDR halos around the lights. I also suspect that some heavy noise reduction was applied. --Hendric Stattmann 12:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Plaza_de_Macedonia,_Skopie,_Macedonia,_2014-04-17,_DD_70.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Macedonia Square, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia --Poco a poco 08:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. I'd suggest a correction also of the horizontal tilt which disturbes me --Moroder 06:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Tilt corrected Poco a poco 17:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The quality is OK, though the scenery itself is a little bit depressing. --Dirtsc 08:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. I cannot find any technical deficiencies that would prevent a QI promotion. Still, the same picture taken on a clear day with better light would be desirable. --Hendric Stattmann 12:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Davidraju Calicnemia miniata (Selys,1886) (1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Calicnemia miniata by Davidvraju --Jkadavoor 03:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 19:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not for me. blurred. Charlesjsharp 23:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Ok, this one is not as good as the other one (DoF problem / sensor not parallel to the dragonfly) Poco a poco 09:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Eyes are sharp enough for me but the useless left side and the bottom should be cropped out.--Ermell 19:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Cropped; thanks for the suggestion. Jkadavoor 03:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I'm inclined to agree with Poco a poco here; the thorax and eyes are fine but the DoF is just too shallow so large parts of the abdomen are out of focus. Pity, because it's otherwise a nice image. --Peulle 07:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Palauenc05 15:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Perhaps 25% of the insect is sharp. I'll vote against to break the tie. -- Ikan Kekek 08:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)