Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 13 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Amphithéâtre_d'ElJem_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination El Jem Roman Amphitheater --IssamBarhoumi 09:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is CA and both sides are leaning out Poco a poco 10:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, too strong chromatic aberration --Berthold Werner 10:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support good now. --Berthold Werner 08:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment dear Poco a poco and dear Berthold Werner i removed the CA and the leaning out see it again --IssamBarhoumi 11:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. I don't understand why something easily fixable (like CA) could guide to a direct Decline, we shouldn't overload CR --Poco a poco 14:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Poco a poco. --Basotxerri 07:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --W.carter 08:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed, IMHO. --C messier 11:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

File:ETR 500 Frecciarossa at platform in Milano Centrale.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tighter view of ETR 500 Italian high-speed train at Milano Centrale --Daniel Case 17:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 22:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burnt highlights and a lot CA --Ermell 14:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burnt highlights and a lot CA, as Ermell--Lmbuga 15:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CAs are fixable, but the "light at the end of the tunnel" is not, unfortunately. W.carter 08:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 03:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 02:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Décord_star_wars.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination decord star wars au niveaux nafta, ong jmal --Imed skander 10:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Needs better file name and description. W.carter 11:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice, but jpg artifacts: See the sky, please--Lmbuga 16:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline Do you think you could fix the things pointed out in the comments? W.carter 17:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Jpeg artifacts are due to the compresion: 5,184 × 3,456 pixels and file size only 1.12 MB. Less compression is better, but if the review of this picture is with only 2 megapixels... Other users can think: "discuss"--Lmbuga 15:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nobody had done either 'Decline' or 'Promote' so you took it directly from 'Nomination' to 'Discuss' and 'Decline'. That was a really strange thing to do. If you don't think it is QI and no one else has said anything, you should just 'Decline' it and see if someone disagrees with you. W.carter 16:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I think that with this compression is not QI, but what happens if the image is resized to two megapixels? Would be the compression important to decline? I'm not sure. What do you think, W.carter--Lmbuga 12:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't think too much about "what was" or "what would happen if", I deal with the picture in front of me and make decisions only on that. As it stands now with the jpegs in the sky, it is not a QI. But this noise problem is usually very easily fixed in post-processing for an experienced photographer, so I always like to give the nominator a chance to correct things like this, which is why I did not decline it right away. Now this is a new user here, and we don't know what level his/hers skills are at. Just last week I became surprised at how fast another "newbie" grasped how to deal with everything here and how to correct their pictures. So I like to be not too fast to judge. In this case though, the categories have been corrected by another user, the description has not been improved and we have not heard from the "newbie" so I guess this will have to be a decline unless someone steps in and save the image for the nominator. Miracles do happen, even here. "Trust The Force, Luke Lmbuga!" ;) W.carter 21:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as it is now. Can be changed if the problems are fixed. W.carter 08:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 02:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Midnight sun over fields south of Inuvik, NT.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Midnight sun on a landscape near Inuvik --Daniel Case 05:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Pudelek 10:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lens flares and dust spots. --C messier 12:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, per C messier. --Basotxerri 14:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 02:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Graphomya maculata male.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A fly (unidentified) --Aymen FANTAR 23:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please mind to figure out the species of animals and plants you nominate here Poco a poco 22:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment The file also needs a better name. W.carter 08:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Graphomya maculata maleNotafly 20:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks to everyone for helping out here. Most things are fixed, but the geotag that you, Aymen, have put on the other pictures would be great to have here as well. W.carter 14:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Geotag added. --Aymen FANTAR 16:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Thanks! Good quality. --W.carter 16:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not really sure about this one, the top crop is not good enough, you cropped the wing --Poco a poco 18:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it's not cropped but just on the limit of the frame -- Aymen FANTAR 08:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm really 50/50 on this one; the tight top crop is a bit of a problem, as is the shallow DoF, but the colours, the light and sharpness of the eye are just brilliant ... Leaning towards a weak support for QI (it could have been FP with said issues fixed). I'd like to hear more opinions of the quality.--Peulle 22:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop/cut is unfortunate and we can't help here. There is plenty of space below; so no excuse for the cut above. Jkadavoor 08:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, QI in my opinion must have better DoF. Very unfortunate crop--Lmbuga 16:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I agree with Lmbuga entirely. -- Ikan Kekek 08:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 02:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

File:16-09-02-Wahlkampfabschluß_in_Warnemünde-RR2_4739.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sigmar Gabriel, german politican --Ralf Roletschek 13:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree: right crop cuts too far. Also slight lack of sharpness near the left side.--Peulle 15:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I don´t see any problem with the crop. --Hubertl 09:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment believe me, Peulle, the rest of the head is just for decoration, no deeper purpose. --Hubertl 13:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment Sorry, I still disagree; a portrait photo should not crop a person's ears. My oppose therefore stands. Still, democracy rules in CR. ;) --Peulle 07:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alchemist-hp 21:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No problem with the crop, but it is unsharp at full size.--Jebulon 09:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 15:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose What should be sharp (the eyes) is unsharp, and what doesn't have to be sharp (the shirt) is sharp. --A.Savin 08:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough, sorry. Poor quality IMO. Motion blur IMO--Lmbuga 16:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I'm breaking the tie in favor of the opposers. I don't think this photo is of very good quality because of the unsharpness noted above, and the crop is not acceptable to me. -- Ikan Kekek 09:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 02:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)