Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 02 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Porta_Pia_-_Statue_of_Saint_Alexander.jpg

[edit]

File:PlayaLaPerlaNorte.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination La Perla Norte Beach, Mar del Plata, Argentina --Ezarate 13:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Its a matter of respect to review your pictures befor nomination. Its extremely tilted. --Hubertl 23:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I tried to repare it Ezarate 22:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now. (Who put this on Discuss? There are no diverting opinions.) --Kreuzschnabel 15:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I put it on Discuss when I fixed the picture Ezarate 14:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment No need for that, just leave it in the daily section next time (having added a "done" note), it will be re-reviewed then. Discussion is only necessary if two reviewers do not agree. --Kreuzschnabel 20:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I have changed it to promotion on the grounds of no dissent. Mattbuck 21:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Calliptamus_barbarus_on_Opuntia_stricta,_Sète_02.jpg

[edit]

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Christian Ferrer 09:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Calliptamus_barbarus_on_Opuntia_stricta,_Sète_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Calliptamus barbarus (Occitan Grasshopper) on a Opuntia stricta (Erect Prickly Pear). Close view. --Christian Ferrer 09:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Too shallow DoF IMO, not a QI to me. --Poco a poco 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
     Comment For a 15mpx image of a subject about 5mm high, I'm not sure the DOF is so bad. --Christian Ferrer 18:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
About 1700×1600 could show only the grasshopper, clearer than 05. –Be..anyone 08:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed more you get closer, more the subject is big but more the DoF decreases. I did not nominate your exemple because the subject is a bit out of focus. But on this one the head is in focus and sharp enough, it's QI for me. --Christian Ferrer 11:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too small DOF. --Steindy 22:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Christian Ferrer 09:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Pomnik_przy_nabrzeżu.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Monument on the waterfront. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 12:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Joydeep 13:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Many parts era overexposed. --Steindy 00:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Steindy. --Kreuzschnabel 12:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Pomnik_Efrema_Eszby_(01).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Monument of Efrem Eshba. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 12:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI for me, even when the monument is not centered perfectly but the person on the right side gives an additional accent, which allows that. --Hubertl 13:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The head of the monument is overexposed. --Steindy 00:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF too shallow (inscription is the only thing in focus) --Kreuzschnabel 12:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Simiane_La_Rotande.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Simiane-La-Rotonde - The castle tower (La Rotande) --Imehling 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Coyau 09:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bit unsharp, some overexposure. --Mattbuck 00:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Ogród_botaniczny_(12).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chinese Tea (Camellia sinensis var. sinensis). Botanical garden. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 12:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose overexposed --Pleclown 11:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I do not agree. I checked it in 2 software edit programs. Maybe others should decide. --Halavar 20:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment The software can only show you clipping highlights. It can't really tell you if the whole picture (or most of it) is too bright. That's something you must judge yourself (make sure your monitor settings are OK). --El Grafo 12:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The wires are somewhat disturbing, but I think this is acceptable. The exposure is good. --Code 06:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed. Ram-Man 12:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I agree, the picture is overexposed. Mattbuck 23:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose OE --Christian Ferrer 08:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed. --Steindy 22:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Pseudocoladenia dan by Nayikayam Thattu.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pseudocoladenia dan (Fulvous Pied Flat) Jkadavoor 10:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment The upper edges of both wings are unsharp, sorry. --Dnalor 01 18:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and enough depth of field for a macro photo.--ArildV 07:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Ram-Man 18:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Not fully sharp. Mattbuck 23:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I confess I've to rise the ISO (400 ?) and use a big f number (like f/16). This was my first day with a DSLR which was gifted by a fellow Wikimedian. Still has only a kit lens; so trying to make some results with my friendly Raynox DCR 250. Not nominating the remaining shots I have taken in the same day; they all have similar problems. Thanks all; hope I will improve soon. :) Jkadavoor 12:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Hořejší_Kařezský_rybník,_neznámé_rostliny.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Unidentified plants at Hořejší Kařezský rybník, Kařezské rybníky natural monument, Rokycany District, Czech Republic. --Juandev 16:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Weak  Support Good quality. May be good for a better crop. --XRay 08:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose, on composition ground, IMHO unclear-non-existent subject and I think a more accurate description from unidentified plants is needed. Sorry. --C messier 10:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support This picture easily meets technical quality standards, but does it meet the value standards? The only thing notable is that it was taken at an identified natural monument and it does adequately show that subject, even if the plants themselves are unidentified. It's primarily a nature scene, not a plant photo. A wide angle version of the subject might be more useful, but such photos exist in the category on the location. This is just another view of the subject and that's OK. -- Ram-Man 18:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • IMO, it's too tight for a general view and too wide for a plant view. And the sky reflection to the right is IMHO quite disturbing. --C messier 22:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)