Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 06 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Lake Windermere MMB 69 Bowness-on-Windermere "MV Miss Westmorland".jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The MV Miss Westmorland. Mattbuck 07:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion poor composition. Too much water, hills cropped. Boat right in middle of image is poor composition. Pennant on prow obscured by dinghy in the background --Charlesjsharp 08:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    This is not FP. Maybe a few seconds earlier would have been better, but never mind. This photo is easily QI standard IMO. Also, since we're being pedantic, a background object cannot obscure a foreground object. --Mattbuck 12:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support shadows a bit dark for my tastes but QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Cleary QI IMHO --The Photographer 21:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 06:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

File:London City Airport MMB 02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination London City Airport. Mattbuck 07:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --JDP90 08:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - poor composition with shopping trolley in tunnel --Charlesjsharp 08:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    This is not FP, the trolley is irrelevant. Mattbuck 12:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
     Support OK for me --A.Savin 14:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Cayambe 10:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 06:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

File:West Croydon station MMB 08.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination West Croydon station. Mattbuck 07:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Photo taken at the wrong time of day. Platform is mostly backlit. Shadow in foreground detracts. --Charlesjsharp 08:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    This is not FP, I think this is QI and ask for more opinions. --Mattbuck 12:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I will support with a little brightening of the shadows --Christian Ferrer 17:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    I have brightened it slightly, but doing any more ruins the photo IMO. Mattbuck 17:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support ok --Christian Ferrer 17:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 10:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 18:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

File:West Hampstead tube station MMB 01 S Stock 1996 Stock.jpg[edit]

  • My opinion is the composition is widely acceptable, but I was not able to refrain my sarcasms when I read poor composition and form of revenge --Christian Ferrer 15:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Christian Ferrer 08:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:University Park MMB «A0 Derby Hall.jpg[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Christian Ferrer 08:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Blue Tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) portrait.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Eurasian blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) --Charlesjsharp 22:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Branch OOF, loss of detail in the white cheeks. --Mattbuck 23:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    The branch is not the focus of the image. Can I suggest other Commoners examine Mattbuck's reply to my decline of his Jackdaw picture. --Charlesjsharp 14:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Main subjct seem ok and I will support if you remove the dustspot (just left of the head), you remove the shadow at top right, and put down the highlights on the head of the bird (the light is very harsh) --Christian Ferrer 16:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Dust spot removed; replaced with portrait image to remove blurred branches (not shadow) at right --Charlesjsharp 08:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support ok however white of the head is a bit overexposed --Christian Ferrer 14:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI IMHO --The Photographer 14:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Christian Ferrer 08:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Speckled Wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria) underside.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Speckled Wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria) --Charlesjsharp 22:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Not properly in focus. --Mattbuck 23:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    other opinions please --Charlesjsharp 15:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    * Oppose Lighting, sharpness. --Arctic Kangaroo 00:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Christian Ferrer 08:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Green-veined white butterfly (Pieris napi) underside.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Green-veined white butterfly (Pieris napi --Charlesjsharp 22:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Motion blur on the wing-tips. --Mattbuck 23:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    other opinions please --Charlesjsharp 15:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Mattbuck + pixels all over the background from sharpening, I presume. --Arctic Kangaroo 00:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support acceptable --Christian Ferrer 16:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC) ups, I've just seen the flowers is a bit overexposed and have burned out areas --Christian Ferrer 16:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    I do not use sharpening --Charlesjsharp 08:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    Hmm ok... --Arctic Kangaroo 11:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some minimal chromatic aberration Aceptable, but background noise that could be fixed --The Photographer 14:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Christian Ferrer 08:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Ljungdalen_April_2014_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mountain landscape with Montane Birch trees close to lake Öjön, Ljungdalen (Berg municipality, Jämtland county). --ArildV 07:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 10:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Charming indeed, but seems to me too much underexposed. The snow is very grey-brown, and looks almost like sand. I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 22:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    •  Info New version uploaded.--ArildV 10:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Snow can have many different colours, though I would expect somewhat more blue in the shadow areas. But we don't know the lighting really exact. -- Smial 13:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose I'm with Jebulon, I tried on my pc, and I think it is improvable --Christian Ferrer 16:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Christian Ferrer 08:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:2014-04-16_14-18-04_Chateau-Engelbourg-thann.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Engelbourg castle, Thann, France. --ComputerHotline 18:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Review The bushes on the left side are blurred (motion by wind?)--SteveK 21:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Out of curiosity, what is the point of using a ND1000 filter here? --ArildV 08:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I can take the wind motion. --ComputerHotline 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC) QI imo.--ArildV 23:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
     OpposeI disagree, because the blurred bushes at the left side are not necessary for this motive --SteveK 17:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)  Comment I tend to agree with you (although deliberately, I dont think the wind motion adds anything of value to the image). However, it's a small detail in an otherwise god quality photo imo. --ArildV 09:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sorry but blurred zone is distracting --The Photographer 14:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Christian Ferrer 08:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Liebfrauenkirche_Lienzingen-Aussen1.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination View of the Church of Our Lady in Lienzingen. --SteveK 15:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose way too much noise, and bad light. --A.Savin 11:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Comment*✓ New versionI have try to fix the problems.--SteveK 09:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version--SteveK (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Christian Ferrer 08:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Dalian_Liaoning_China_Public-clock-at-the-customs-office-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Public clock at the customs office in Dalian harbour, China. --Cccefalon 06:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Review  Support Good quality --Halavar 18:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose I think a more centered composition should be better. But the main issue here is the cornice below, which is distorded, and should be horizontaly straight, IMO.--Jebulon 19:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Christian Ferrer 08:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)