Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 08 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Quarinhof,_Wien_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Der Quarinhof in Wien --Thomas Ledl 13:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Perspective is well done, but the cropped cars in the front are spoiling the composition --Michielverbeek 16:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Cropped the cars away though I don't think "composition" is a valid reason to decline QI that would be for featured pics. --Thomas Ledl 17:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From the top of this page: Composition and lighting: The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed. In other words, composition is a valid reason to support or oppose a nomination for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 06:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose From the same place: "Foreground and background objects should not be distracting." The cars ruined your shot, sorry.--Peulle 06:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Preah_Khan,_Angkor,_Camboya,_2013-08-17,_DD_09.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture in Preah Khan, Angkor, Cambodia --Poco a poco 18:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Previously declined, no new version available --A.Savin 10:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • True, I overlooked that, ✓ new version uploaded Poco a poco 13:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes I've looked at the new version, it's (still) blurred in large parts, I can only oppose sorry --A.Savin 10:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Can we please discuss it? To me it looks ok. The "blurry" areas are IMHO just eroded spots not a problem of the image --Poco a poco 19:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Seems alright to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me too. --W.carter 08:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me, it looks like the camera was not quite steady. There is a bit of blur throughout.--Peulle 10:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry, sorry. --Basotxerri 18:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 15:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Widespread forester (Euphaedra medon medon) male.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Widespread forester (Euphaedra medon medon) male, Ghana --Charlesjsharp 13:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI imo. --ArildV 13:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree; the whole bottom part of the butterfly is out of focus. Honestly, I'm used to seeing much better work from this user.--Peulle 19:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMO.--Ermell 07:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Billy69150 14:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Hebes_pink_forester_(Euphaedra_hebes).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hebes pink forester (Euphaedra hebes), Ghana --Charlesjsharp 13:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not for me, sorry, the DoF is shallow and the top part is out of focus as a result.--Peulle 19:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Ermell 07:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me --Billy69150 14:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Not for me, sorry, the DoF is shallow and the flash is too noticeable IMO--Lmbuga 23:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)