Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 15 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Enthroned_Virgin_and_Child_(11130).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Enthroned Virgin and Child, ca. 1280-1300, at the Met Cloisters. --Rhododendrites 14:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Good picture, but vignetting should be removed. Perhaps a bit underexposed--[[User:Lmbuga|Lmbuga]] 20:50, 11 january 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - This version looks like a QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 13:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support QI now IMO Lmbuga (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 10:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Gallotia galloti palmae La Palma.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of head of a young female Gallotia galloti palmae in La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain. --Viajaste 23:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - I think the head is not sharp enough for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 01:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment But the eye and the arm its very clear. --Viajaste 18:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment - That's not enough for me. If you want to contest my decline, change "Decline" to "Discuss". -- Ikan Kekek 00:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Ikan Kekek: I want the Consensual review, how can I do that? Thanks --Viajaste 11:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • To discuss, please look how to do it --Michielverbeek 22:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I think that the photo has the requirements to be a quality photo. --Viajaste (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Viajaste: Sorry, you can't review your own work. I've crossed out your vote. --Basotxerri 16:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan. It seems to me that the focal plane is too much in front while it should be centered on the eyes. --Basotxerri 16:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 10:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Aftermath_of_January_2018_North_American_blizzard_15.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aftermath of January 2018 North American blizzard 15 --PumpkinSky 00:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Vengolis 01:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • {{o}} chromatic aberrations (or green halos) should be removed (see note)... The other pictures about this item (or subject) are QI IMO--Lmbuga 13:51, 9 january 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I tried to fix this but I'm not very good at CA fixing. Not sure how well I did. PumpkinSky 21:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Lmbuga: Someone has tried to help with the CA too. Please review. Thank you. PumpkinSky 03:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good now. --Basotxerri 16:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Good work. There are not CAs. The other pictures are much better Lmbuga19:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 10:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Fassade_der_ehem._Firma_Ketteler-Specht_--_2018_--_0333.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Facade of the former textile factory “Ketteler/Specht” (during the construction phase of the Ketteler Gardens), Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment - Hope not only for me, looks like overplayed with perspective correction. Same matter with the upright one (but that´s better). Really strange bcs. 35mm is not really a strong WA --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 05:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    • ✓ Fixed Thank you. I think it's fixed now. --XRay
      • I wanna (more must) overhand this to other reviewers. My ACR is at this time not fresh. I downloaded the jpg, with lens profile ACR 6.7, my version is different (sorry). I´m not pleased with f4 lenses from Canon, but have to check it out to be serious. I´m sure it´s taken to much time. Other opinions are welcome! --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 17:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --A.Savin 20:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support It might be a bit sharper and IMO it's not an impressive composition but quality is just high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 21:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 10:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Haltern_am_See,_Silbersee_III_--_2017_--_0298.jpg[edit]

  • {{o}} As [[User:PumpkinSky|PumpkinSky]]. Perhaps FP (if it's an artistic picture), but not QI IMO. Motion blur or trepidation (see note); and poor detail [[User:Lmbuga|Lmbuga]] ([[User talk:Lmbuga|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC). New review without review, sorryLmbuga (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - Motion blur makes it a low-quality picture, when that's by design and inherent to a 20-second exposure? -- Ikan Kekek 00:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny review. Sorry. I've seen your note. Yes, there is motion blur at the objects swimming on top of the water on a windy day and a long exposure. I do not expect anything else. You can't see the vanes of the wind turbine in the background too. --XRay 06:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I absolutely see the intention of the image but I'm really not sure if the execution is good enough. My main worries are that the stationary rocks and stones which are supposed to be sharp are quite small (regarding the rest of the image), lacking a bit of contrast in comparison to its surroundings and even this way they aren't very sharp either. Maybe the overall impression on a B&W version would be better as it permits slight exaggerations of reality. In any case I would appreciate more opinions. --Basotxerri 17:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination I think I should finish the discussion. Thank you for all your comments. --XRay 06:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Basotxerri 17:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]