Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 14 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Béjar - Ruta de las Fábricas 09.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La Ruta de las Fábricas Textiles: city hiking trail in Béjar. River ‘’Cuerpo del Hombre’’. Salamanca, Castile-Leon, Spain --Basotxerri 09:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The noise on the darker water parts at the middle left is too extreme. --Tuxyso 19:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Sorry, you're right, I forgot to apply NR, there wasn't any at all. I've uploaded a new version, please reconsider. IMO the quality should be within the limits now. --Basotxerri 17:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 04:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Rio_del_Megio_Rio_del_Fondaco_dei_Turchi_Canal_Grande_Venezia.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination "Rio del Megio" canal and the Fondaco del Megio in Venice. --Moroder 07:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support IMO good enough for a QI. As it is slightly unsharp on the right front side, I pass it to CR because I would like to hear other opinions. --Basotxerri 17:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 04:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Morelia_viridis,Skansen_Akvariet,_Stockholm,_Sweden.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Morelia viridis from the Skansen Akvariet in Stockholm, Sweden --Ziegenberg 20:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 21:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: Needs reducing of the whites. Parts of the snake are too bright. --Cccefalon 04:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I uploaded a new version with reduced highlights. Do you want to reconsidere your vote? --Ziegenberg 18:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reworking. It is better now. --Cccefalon 21:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI. I just have changed a meaningless category by a meaningful one, next time you please do it yourself @Ziegenberg: --A.Savin 12:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Ford_Mustang_May_2016_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 1966 Ford Mustang front view. --ArildV 19:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Too short distance for me and unfavorable lighting. -- Spurzem 21:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --A.Savin 02:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I ask for discussion. -- Spurzem 15:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too short distance for a photo of a car --Ralf Roletschek 22:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed distance is very short, but I appreciate this artistic effect --Michielverbeek 22:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The wall in the back is correctly exposed. No QI for me because of unfavorable lighting.--Ermell 08:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 14:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Ναός Αγίας Σοφίας, Ναύπλιο 8299.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Ayia Sofia, Nafplion.--C messier 07:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Disturbing wires and shadowed part on the right side --Moroder 09:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I think, it´s unavoidable. Both. Shadows and wires. Not an eligible support because it was not signed. I stroke it. --Cccefalon 06:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I think, it´s unavoidable. Both. Shadows and wires. - sorry, my fault before...--Hubertl 15:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK --A.Savin 12:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 14:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

File:TechodelAltar-BasilicadelaPiedad-BsAs-Argentina-may2016.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Partial view of roof of the altar, Basilica de la Piedad, Bs. As., Argentina --Ezarate 22:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support OK. --Peulle 19:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO, tilted CW, and needs a symmetrical crop. Also, some overexposure at the column to the right, and I'm not sure about the WB (blueish). --C messier 15:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I did some corrections Ezarate 23:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMHO, underexposed now. --C messier 05:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Exposure level increased Ezarate 22:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • weak  Support Could be crisper, just OK4QI --A.Savin 12:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 14:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Acrocephalus_schoenobaenus_telor_yr_hesg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Acrocephalus_schoenobaenus By User:Alun Williams333 *  Comment Nomination not signed. --Hubertl 03:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Nominated by --Llywelyn2000 07.59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: sorry, too much noise for a daytime shot (ISO should have been lower), and the focus is not perfect either. --Peulle 12:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support. Not optimal but weak QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 21:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good quality for me, very very difficult to shoot this species. -- El Golli Mohamed 21:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp, jpeg artefacts. --Cccefalon 07:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The head is not sharp enough, sorry. --Basotxerri 18:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality --A.Savin 12:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 14:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)