Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 01 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Estremoz September 2013-11.jpg[edit]

File:Mediaslunas, café en jarrito y agua mineral en Café El Gato Negro.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Traditional serving of merienda in Café El Gato Negro, Buenos Aires. --ProtoplasmaKid 22:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. DoF too small. Subject is the cup of coffee and the glass of water, but the glass of water is unsharp and cropped. --XRay 08:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Yann 09:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I had changed the  Support to  Oppose the XRay's vote,because he sign support but write for decline --Livioandronico2013 13:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
      •  Comment Always the same ... Sorry. I like to promote more.--XRay 08:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose anyway per XRay --LivioAndronico talk 11:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong  Oppose For a property photo is not sharp enough. Also some pixel-errors. --Steindy 18:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Visible noise, unfortunate framing (water glass cut by frame), several hot pixels --Kreuzschnabel 07:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --LivioAndronico 09:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Strokkur,_Área_geotérmica_de_Geysir,_Suðurland,_Islandia,_2014-08-16,_DD_082.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Strokkur, Geysir Geothermal Field, Suðurland, Iceland --Poco a poco 10:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment DOF is pretty shallow (are you sure, that the 105 mm was the best choice?) and there are cropped feet on the background. --Iifar 12:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, I do, I wanted to show detail, that area is fenced so how else could I've done it? DoF of the hole of the geyser is IMHO acceptable. I uploaded a new version and got rid of the feet. Poco a poco 18:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    The bottom is too blurry IMO. Mattbuck 16:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
    OK for me. --Yann 09:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support New crop is good. Level of sharpness is fine. Ram-Man 03:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but for me too small DOF. --Steindy 18:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --LivioAndronico 09:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Terelj à Nalaikh, Mongolie (11).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Camp du Parc national Gorkhi-Terelj, en Mongolie.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Sharpness could be better. --XRay 09:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do not agree. It's blurred everywhere. Definitely it's not a QI.--Halavar 22:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ DoneI corrected sharpness of this image who was taken after the sun set that explains It's blurred --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the sharpness is better, but now we've got artifacts and the sky looks really bad, because there are lots of noise there. Sorry, but I think all of there problems are not fixable. Halavar 19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sharpness. Ram-Man 03:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --LivioAndronico 09:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Amaj_Mata,_folk_art,_Bharatiya_Lok_Kala_Museum,_Udaipur,_India.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Amaj Mata, folk art, Bharatiya Lok Kala Museum, Udaipur, India. --Yann 10:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality for QI. May be more space at the bottom would be better. --XRay 09:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Rather harsh flash lighting IMO. --Mattbuck 15:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Question Can it be corrected? I don't know how to do this myself. Yann 09:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I uploaded corrected version.--Hubertl 10:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --LivioAndronico 09:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Narsing_Mata,_folk_art,_Bharatiya_Lok_Kala_Museum,_Udaipur,_India.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Narsing Mata (English description is wrong ;oD), folk art, Bharatiya Lok Kala Museum, Udaipur, India. --Yann 10:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality for QI. May be more space at the bottom would be better. --XRay 09:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Rather harsh flash lighting IMO. --Mattbuck 15:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Question Can it be corrected? I don't know how to do this myself. Yann 09:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I uploaded corrected version.--Hubertl 10:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --LivioAndronico 09:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Tragopogon porrifolius - Purple salsify.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Seeds of wild purple salsify (Tragopogon porrifolius) --Zeynel Cebeci 21:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Nice, but too little depth of field when using Aperture 2.8. Only the second row is sharp. --Steindy 22:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
    •  Comment I´m not sure, If we should take this as a bug or a feature. Third opinion please. --Hubertl 12:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support weak support allthough --Hubertl 21:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good use of DOF. Feature, not bug. -- Smial 00:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I often upload multiple versions of a subject, one with low DoF and one with high DoF. Not every use of a macro plant shot need be of maximum DoF, it just need to be useful in some reasonable way. This meets that goal and does not have any other technical flaws of note. Ram-Man 03:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --LivioAndronico 09:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)