Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 26 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Chrysi_beachrock.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Coquina rock made of entire shells, mixed with sand beach in the island of Chrysi (Crete). --QuimGil 20:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too soft, especially on water --A.Savin 02:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  CommentA.Savin, for what is worth, the focus is put on the coquina rock and it shells. I wanted to show that rock in detail and in its context, and having the miles of sea behind also on focus was impossible.--QuimGil 05:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, for me it's too soft, including on the rocks. --Domdomegg 22:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 18:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Ghris River, Goulmima, Morocco.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Ghris River, Goulmima, Morocco by Amine BAHDOD --Reda benkhadra 20:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • weak {{s}}, good composition, sharpness a bit low. --Hubertl 20:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  Question - Are watermarks allowed in Quality Images? There's a watermark on the lower left. Ikan Kekek 01:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A version without watermark should be provided, otherwise no QI for me --A.Savin 02:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Our policy for QI is "No watermarks". --Cccefalon 04:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Peulle 10:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hubertl, Ikan Kekek, A. Savin, Cccefalon, and Peulle: ✓ Done --Reda benkhadra 18:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, it's OK now. The quality is fair; good lighting and exposure. --Peulle 20:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Reda Kerbouche 19:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ok now for me too --Hubertl 06:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --A.Savin 13:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 18:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:16-04-04-Detail-Felsendom-Jerusalem-RalfR-WAT_6370.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount Jerusalem; Detail picture --Ralf Roletschek 22:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Detail shot, not a photo of the structure. --Peulle 22:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I fixed the grama/spelling as the native language (german) says what Peulle did.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 08:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC))
  •  Support I disagree Ok for me --Hubertl 10:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I still say no; this image has no clear subject; neither the golden plates nor the ornaments are brought forward as the main subject of the image. Subject therefore unclear/non-existent, certainly not good enough for a QI shot. Please see "composition" section of the guidelines. --Peulle 15:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm civil ing. and to me the corner is a interesting object. --Ralf Roletschek 17:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As a detail picture of a temple, this is a QI for me. The object of this shot is a detail picture and this is reached, satisfying the quality requirements (IMO). --Basotxerri 20:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support is ok for me--Reda Kerbouche 07:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 02:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Landtagsprojekt Brandenburg Steffen Königer by Olaf Kosinsky-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Steffen Königer, Member of Landtag Brandenburg --Olaf Kosinsky 08:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 08:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks too dark to me. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 23:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ?? authorship remarks in description vs EXIF data ?? + too dark. --Alchemist-hp 17:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Camera borrowing out? However, this is a tiny resolution, considering the fact that this was a portrait shooting where you can go as close as you want. --Cccefalon 18:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:P8-Wheel-P1330759_7_8N.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wheel of a Prussian P8 locomotive. By User:Ermell, winner of our month challenge. --Rodrigo.Argenton 20:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I'm no expert, but... this looks overprocessed to me. --Peulle 20:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC).
    •  Comment Totally acceptable process, fits in the mood. --Rodrigo.Argenton 07:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment QI is about the quality of the photo and not how cool it can be made to look with Photoshop, therefore oppose in accordance with the guidelines --Peulle 10:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
        • I didn't oppose, I comment about the opposition. And about the photo, it's sharp, it´s well exposed, well composed, don't have any aberration, distortion, and no, it's not over-processed, over processes occurs when the post production deteriorate the overall quality of the image, creating hazes, weird artefacts, noises... this not a Quality Purist Photograph, it's Image, digital art it's also a image. Last observations, I didn't change do /Discuss another volunteer did, and it's not my image... Rodrigo.Argenton 01:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessing makes heavy noise artifacts in all very dark areas. Nice composition, though. -- Smial 20:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 02:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)