Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 04 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Pedra_do_Altar_em_Barra_de_Santana.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view of "Pedra do Altar" archaeological site in Paraiba, Brazil --Andre Pimentel de Araujo 17:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --DarwIn 22:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Hold it. Isn't this the same photo that was declined for insufficient quality on May 29 by User:XRay? If not, it seems to be an exact duplicate of that photo. Ikan Kekek 03:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment @Ikan Kekek: I've just deleted a duplicate of this file named File:Pedra do Altar - Barra de Santana.jpg, but it had a smaller size and possibly inferior quality? Can you please evaluate this one again?--DarwIn 09:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment It's not up to me. I like this photo but don't feel competent pronouncing it to be of good technical quality if XRay didn't think it was. I think that unless User:XRay is satisfied that this photo is different and better from the one he declined, or changes his mind, it would be an irregular procedure to promote this image based on a nomination one day after it(?) was declined. Ikan Kekek 10:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
          •  Comment @Ikan Kekek: Should I withdraw my vote to avoid that, or will someone else review this before promotion? I apologize for the question, I'm still learning my way through this process.--DarwIn 15:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
            •  Comment Probably, but I don't know, either as I don't usually participate at QIC. @XRay: ? Ikan Kekek 22:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
              (stopping the promotion and sending to discussion) --DarwIn 05:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I remember this image. The former one was full of noise in the sky. This one has acceptable sharpness and no noise in the sky. IMO OK for QI. --XRay 15:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 13:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Pine_trees,_Île_Saint-Martin,_Gruissan_cf02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pine trees trees. Narbonnaise en Méditerranée Regional Natural Park, commune of Gruissan, Aude, France. --Christian Ferrer 04:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Focus is not good, bottom is not sharp enough. If you would crop this part I don't think composition is very interesting --Michielverbeek 05:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment It's a deliberate small DoF with focus point at bottom of the trees, my will was to focuse on the bented trees, and the result is not bad nor unsharp IMO --Christian Ferrer 11:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok for me, more than just acceptable. --Hubertl 06:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. --Tsungam 07:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 18:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 13:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Winged_Victory_of_Samothrace_(1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Winged Victory of Samothrace displayed at the Louvre --Rijinatwiki 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think so. It is mainly unsharp, with magenta cast.--Jebulon 09:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition and sharp enough. Quality image for me. -- Spurzem 18:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 00:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

File:13-06-27-breda-by-RalfR-047.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ceiling of Grote of Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekerk (Breda), Netherlands} --Ralf Roletschek 09:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 11:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No category - no promotion. --A.Savin 04:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support category added now, therefore ok for me --Hubertl 06:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 18:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 13:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Pieris napi, male, spring brood.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Large white (Pieris brassicae) male, spring brood, Oxfordshire --Charlesjsharp 21:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Half of the wings are out of focus. --C messier 08:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with C messier. The DoF is too shallow, ensuring that not all of the subject is in focus.--Peulle (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 13:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)