Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 14 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Set_of_chairs.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Set of chairs. --PetarM 13:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Under normal circumstances this shouldn't be a QI... Is it tilted? Yes, it seems, doesn't it? Is it as sharp as it could be? No. However, it's intentionally (at least I hope) and I like it! I'll support it but I would like to hear some other opinions, therefore I put it into CR. --Basotxerri 16:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good composition. I approve. -- Ikan Kekek 10:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition is fine. The sharpness is not. To me, the DoF is too shallow for an image that is supposed to depict a set of chairs, and even if a shallow DoF was accepted, the focus area too is not very sharp. In conclusion, I must oppose.--Peulle 14:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks as if the trigger was accidentally pressed and not like a carefully thought-out composition. Not sharp enough.--Ermell 11:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I know that the encyclopedic value of a picture is no criterion of QI, however I ask myself why such a picture is uploaded at all. Nevertheless, a large part of the image is unsharp, hence no QI IMO. --Palauenc05 12:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 22:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Kolshorner Teich (05).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lake Kolshorn in Hanover Region --Hydro 08:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 08:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very unsharp at sides. --A.Savin 03:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As the image is about the lake (and its shore), I think the shore should be sharp. And especially to the side's it isn't. Sorry, not a QI for me. --Basotxerri 16:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry, 6,000 × 4,000 pixels: Sharp enough IMO. A bit of noise, but 6,000 × 4,000 pixels. Not unsharp at sides: See the picture with two megapixels.--Lmbuga 16:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp at right. Charlesjsharp 22:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 22:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)