Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 20 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Faial IMG 3614aa.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Island of Faial, Azores --Christof46 07:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment
    CA at the mountain edge should be removed--Ermell 09:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done new version--Christof46 11:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not a QI to me definitely due to lack of detail (and CA) --Poco a poco 09:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree The image has somewhat low contrast, but this is due to the weather conditions. Look e.g. at the power line pole, it has nearly the same detail as some areas in File:Machu Picchu, Perú, 2015-07-30, DD 51.JPG. Please don't mix high contrast with sharpness and low contrast with unsharpness. --Smial 12:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
     Comment Please, Smial, don't mix this image with others. If you want to discuss any other pictures, go ahead where it corresponds. This picture to my eyes is not sharp, specially at the borders Poco a poco 12:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As Smial. --Dirtsc 06:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 06:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Sandakan_Sabah_Plywood-Factory-10b.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Sandakan, Sabah: Plywood Factory; The Trimming Unit cuts the log, so that the lengths are fitting into the peeling machines --Cccefalon 06:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose AF caught the chaines in the foreground. The worker is too unsharp IMO --Ermell 07:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I know that. It was my intention to have the trimming unit in focus (as mentioned in the description). This image goes into an article for Sabah Ministry of Forests about local technology in plywood production. --Cccefalon 11:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Lighting not perfect, but all in all ok for QI. --Smial 08:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall unsharp IMO, and not enough depth. --Peulle 11:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me --A.Savin 00:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 06:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)