Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 01 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Vagão_desajeitado_versão_final.webm[edit]

  • Nomination Clumsy wagon, a puzzle that has as its core a mathematical problem. --Rodrigo.Argenton 06:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose As in FPC, the video contains what amounts to a signature; the Guidelines specify that "No advertisements, signatures, or other watermarks in image. Copyright/authorship information of all images should be located on the image's description page and should not interfere with content of the image." --Peulle 12:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Bei Filmen ist es absolut üblich, derartige Infos im Abspann zu haben. --Ralf Roletschek 20:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ... wenn sie denn korrekt und vollständig wären. Sind sie aber nicht. Name falsch geschrieben, CC-Version fehlt, ein Mitwirkender fehlt, wenn man pingelig ist: Links auf die CC-Versionen fehlen. --Smial 16:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment why are you speaking in German, I only know by heart write Ich bin ein Brot that's a joke that only Brazilians with bad sense humour will laugh. (bread is a old slang for a handsome boy). Rodrigo.Argenton 20:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 Comment This was a reply to Ralf to explain my contrary vote. You can read my arguments in english at the deletion request. --Smial 14:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Ps. Who wrote about bread?
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --PumpkinSky 11:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

File:White_Orchid_1_NBG.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination White Orchied, Orchidaceae, in the Tropical Greenhouse, Norfolk Botanical Garden, Norfolk, Virginia. --PumpkinSky 02:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Stepro 02:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, the areas that have been sharpened are very clearly visible and the categorisation could be better. --Ermell 08:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 08:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • An orchid specialised fixed the category PumpkinSky 12:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   - -- Johann Jaritz 03:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Purple_Orchid_NBG.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Purple Orchid, Orchidaceae, in the Tropical Greenhouse, Norfolk Botanical Garden, Norfolk, Virginia. Focus stacked from 10 images. --PumpkinSky 02:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Stepro 02:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough and the categorization could be better here as well. --Ermell 08:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 08:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • An orchid specialised fixed the category. PumpkinSky 12:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   - -- Johann Jaritz 03:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

File:West_Neck_Creek_Natural_Area_5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Diseased Southern Red Oak at West Neck Creek Natural Area --PumpkinSky 23:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 Oppose Unsharp --Jacek Halicki 23:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree and am sending to CR. I do appreciate you taking the time to look at it and my other photos. PumpkinSky 03:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Everything is in focus, the noise is ISO64 and the f/11. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Somewhat overexposed. The focus is inside that "wound", and DOF somewhat small, but there is no disturbing noise and the sharp areas are sharp. --Smial 18:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've cut the exposure. PumpkinSky 23:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Good rework, thx. Weak  Support, somewhat more DOF, or a focus point some cm more to the foreground would have been nice, but acceptable as it is now. The structures inside this hole are sharp and good visible. --Smial 10:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   - Johann Jaritz 03:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Garten 036.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Blaumeise-Gartenvogel,Rheinland-Pfalz,Germania--Fischer.H 18:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Question Would you be able to upload a higher resolution? Your image has about 2.3 MP while your camera shoots at 15 MP. --Basotxerri 18:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality. Resolution is OK 'cause the bird is obviously croped out of the 320mm pic. --Stepro 06:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not with this resolution, Tournasol7 00:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Peulle 12:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support resolution is over 2 MPix. --Ralf Roletschek 10:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 18:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support More then good enough and I´m not a birdy men. ----Hans-Jürgen Neubert 03:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 11:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_St.-Viktor-Kirche,_Innenansicht,_Opferkerzen_--_2018_--_0626.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Candles in the St Viktor Church, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 08:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I'd understand if you couldn't get all of them in focus, but I think you could have gotten more than you did. --Daniel Case 01:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your understandable (hopefully correct word) review. Sorry, but IMO the first candles sharp is good enough. --XRay 05:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall dark and too much of the image is out of focus -- Basile Morin 04:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Darkness fixed I've uploaded a less darker version. Thanks for your review. --XRay 06:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Lighting better now. But still a lot of blurry candles. Not the right focal lens IMO -- Basile Morin 00:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild  Support - Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that in a picture of lit candles in a darkened church, pinpoint focus isn't the point of the photo. So with a good composition, this not being unduly blurred is enough. -- Ikan Kekek 11:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Could be okay with a wide angle, for a more adapted DoF. Here shot with a telephoto lens, there's no chance to get many candles sharp. And because it's naturally dark, without background, the subject seems almost absent -- Basile Morin 00:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Daniel Case and the object of the left side (that luminous stick) is disturbing Lmbuga (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Low DOF obvisiously intended, though I would have chosen the candle in the foreground to be sharp, but this is a matter of taste, not of quality. --Smial 15:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support as Smial --Ralf Roletschek 20:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 11:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)