Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 11 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Tilia_May_2014-2.jpg[edit]

File:Black_goat_(Capra_aegagrus_hircus)_at_Las_Guevaras,_Margarita.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Black goat (Capra aegagrus hircus) at Las Guevaras, Margarita --Beria 13:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality ; background got no details --Orikrin1998 21:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I think we should give this one a chance in the discussion section. Not too bad for me. --NorbertNagel 20:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The background is tilted ccw. According to the settings, it should be pin-sharp but it is not. Examining the background, it is obvious, that there is a camera shake. --Cccefalon 07:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Subject is dark and unsharp -- Alvesgaspar 13:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 11:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

File:European goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis) male.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination European goldfinch nesting (Carduelis carduelis) --Charlesjsharp 22:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Could you brighten the shadow parts on the head? IMHO some details are lost there. --Tuxyso 06:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done--Charlesjsharp 13:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    I see no new version under "file versions". Where is the new version? --Tuxyso
    sorry, just replaced the image here, original is on my home page album --Charlesjsharp 10:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)]] 07:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    Looks ok to me. Mattbuck 12:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Unsharp, lack of detail on the feathers. Why f11?? Why ISO 320? ISO 100 and wider f better and possible. Those are technical flaws imo. --Kadellar 22:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    ISO 320 and F11 because of use of hand-held 400mm lens. Naturally, better to capture a bird with a 100mm lens if you can get close enough, but choice of F stop and ISO is not a technical flaw per se - a tripod would naturally have allowed smaller aperture etc. --Charlesjsharp 08:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose Head of the bird appears slightly too dark for the brightness at that time. And the sharpness on the feathers isn't very convincing. --Arctic Kangaroo 11:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • weak  Support The bird is ok IMO however the weak is for the bit of color noise in the sky --Christian Ferrer 17:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Christian Ferrer 08:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)