Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 24 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Dülmen,_Börnste,_Wiese_--_2018_--_2359.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gate to a Pasture in the hamlet Börnste, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany in the hamlet Börnste, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeInsufficient quality. DOF Why f/2.8. Sorry --Moroder 09:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    •  Comment IMO f/2.8 is good to have the gate sharp. The gate is the motive and it's sharp. It not necessary to have the background or the foreground sharp. --XRay 16:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Intentional DOF, good lighting, and composition. The gate as main motive should be mentioned in the file name and/or the file description just to make it easier for users seeking for an image of a gate. --Smial 09:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I've modified the description to show that the motive is the gate. --XRay 10:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - OK, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 10:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Sorry, DOF (blurred areas at background and foreground do not seem adequate for QI IMO) and chromatic aberrations (see note). Also, the picture (the subject) seems tilted CW.--Lmbuga 12:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed CAs fixed. Thanks for your advice. And I don't think it's titled. The gate itself, yes. The camera was in level.--XRay 15:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I don't like to much the picture. It's on the limit. It is evident that the gate is tilted. The surprising thing is that none of the posts is right. I think. Despite believing that you say, I think that if the less crooked (or tilted) post was right, the photo would improve (but I have no right to ask you that). Thanks for your understanding and your photos (es:Es evidente que la verja está torcida. Lo sorprendente es que ninguno de los postes esté derecho. Te creo. A pesar de creerte, pienso que si el poste menos torcido estuviese derecho la foto mejoraría (pero no tengo derecho a pedirte eso). Gracias por tu comprensión y tus fotos.) --Lmbuga 13:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The posts are not in a level, just natural wood. I would expect the post on the left should be vertical, but it isn't. It is not easy to find true verticals in this photograph. --XRay 21:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 16:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Christmas_Tram,_Budapest.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Christmas Tram, Budapest, HungaryI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:. By User:Epistola8 --Shizhao 03:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Neutral I think this images deserves a CR discussion: on the one hand I see an interesting, abstract, freaky and cool shot, on the other hand I can't see anything in focus (camera shake?). --Basotxerri 08:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can see the effect the photographer was going for, but I don't think it succeeded in this case.--Peulle 11:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Peulle -- Bijay chaurasia 09:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support A not common sight. I am amazed and I think it achieves QI status in its kind. --Milseburg 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Milseburg -- Basile Morin 08:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Weak support --Billy69150 15:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is good photo from an artistic point of view, but as encyclopedic value it's not QI for me. Tournasol7 17:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - This is not Wikipedia. It's a repository of photos, and this is quite a striking one. -- Ikan Kekek 17:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose artistic value ≠ quality. Maybe FP, but not QI. --MB-one 09:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality light in motion blur image Christian Ferrer 19:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perhaps modern art but no QI for me -- Spurzem 20:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Ralf Roletschek 20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki 11:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Milseburg --Rbrechko 15:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 11:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)