Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 13 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Battersea Park railway station MMB 30 377605.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 377605 at Battersea Park. --Mattbuck 08:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose This one is not QI, either. It is blurry, sorry. --Poco a poco 10:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see any blur. --Mattbuck 21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support a bit of lack of clarity IMO but nothing blurred --Christian Ferrer 05:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Slight motion blur and weak corner sharpness. --Smial 09:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable IMO, + excellent composition.--Jebulon 17:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 22:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Poor dof IMO (F6,3). There are too many areas not sharp. But good composition and light--Lmbuga 23:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted Code 05:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Balaklava Southern View.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Black sea shore of Balaklava Bay in Crimea, Ukraine. Mykola Swarnyk 04:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 05:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, it is not sharp due to wrong camera settings. The structure of sea and sky is aweful. --Cccefalon 08:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Cccefalon. --Code 11:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support especially because of good composition. -- Spurzem 18:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough.--Jebulon 21:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 20:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File:2013-09-24 Alter Friedhof, Rennenbergstraße 5, Königswinter-Oberdollendorf IMG 1153.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Terracotta statue, Oberdollendorf, Germany (by Hasenläufer)--Leit 15:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. not enough sharp --Ezarate 16:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    Not enough sharp for QI? I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 22:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)  Support QI for me -- Spurzem 08:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality, definitely sharp enough. --Palauenc05 22:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC) see notes please --Ezarate 22:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose same as Ezarate --Christian Ferrer 15:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp.--Jebulon 21:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 20:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Pinzel Crucifix.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Johann Georg Pinzel. Crucifix. Exhibition in the Lviv Art Gallery--Mykola Swarnyk 02:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality, not fine details at buttom, sorry --Ezarate 21:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support What details are not fine? Perhaps the cross is a bit distorted. But I don't no. Therefore I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 21:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment The board itself is a little bit bent. Mykola Swarnyk 03:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't like the picture, but it's not a bad one: Vigneting. Object of the lett upper cornner could be cropped out. Feet are out of focus. Too much noise in the lower area of the legs. A bit blurried and lack of detail. It seems yellowish or perhaps greenish--Lmbuga 13:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsarp in the 1/3 bottom, noisy and vigneting --Christian Ferrer 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 20:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Blue-tailed_damselfy_(Ischnura_elegans)_female_rufescens.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Blue-tailed damselfy (Ischnura elegans) female, form rufescens --Charlesjsharp 06:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I hate to say it, but it looks like you've got a bit of camera shake going on. With the lens/body combination you're using (100mm macro lens on a 1.6x crop factor body, what I use actually) I'd have aimed for 1/200s exposure or faster (light permitting, of course). Contrast with the sharpness of File:Blue-tailed Damselfly (Ischnura elegans) female infuscans obsoleta.jpg. Crisco 1492 12:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Settings of 1/125 sec; f8; ISO400 chosen for hand-held picture of this rare female form taken at 17.15 (early evening in UK) --Charlesjsharp 10:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yeah, I know (checked the EXIF data). Shame there's a little bit of camera shake. Of course, if someone else thinks it's okay for QI, that's fine with me.Crisco 1492 14:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 20:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Abutilon theophrasti MHNT.BOT.2007.43.38.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination fruits and seeds of Velvetleaf - Fruits et graines de abutilon d'Avicenne --Ercé 09:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 10:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose Sharpness isn't OK. Sorry. --XRay 10:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose there are too many stacking flaws.--Hubertl 20:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Pseudo_medieval_dame.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pseudo medieval dame. --Vitold Muratov 18:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, but please make some better description and maybe a more descriptive filename. --Hubertl 21:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too agressively denoised. Look at the texture of the skin in the faces of the smoking women. It looks synthetic. --Slaunger 12:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, this kind of skin is not really unusual. --Hubertl 19:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support. Of course the description could be better but the image is good. -- Spurzem 11:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Hubertl: , Spurzem: On my screen all faces are severely posterized in full resolution. You do not see that? It looks fine in preview. -- Slaunger 07:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I think, it´s maybe a bit too much denoised, that could be a reason for some "flatness". I can´t see posterization, certainly not severe ones. Even not with full resolution. On the other hand, it´s QI and not FP.--Hubertl 08:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong  Oppose. Heavy posterization visible in 100% view. -- Smial 10:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too posterized, even for QI. --C messier 20:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others.--Jebulon 21:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 20:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Columba_palumbus_-_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Common wood pigeon (Columba palumbus). --Kadellar 13:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support though its not really sharp, but altogether its acceptable. --Hubertl 20:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    perhaps a fourth opinion on sharpness? --Charlesjsharp 14:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment sharp enough but a bit noisy --Christian Ferrer 05:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The head is the most important part and is not sharp. The unfocused branches in the foreground don't help either. Alvesgaspar 19:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distracting foreground element and so-so light and sharpness on head. -- Slaunger 20:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 20:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)