Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 30 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Impression 3 Old City Jerusalem.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A small street, Muslim quarter, near to Via Dolorosa, Old City, Jerusalem -jkb- 13:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, yet another out-of-camera jpeg, severe lack of quality --A.Savin 16:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment can you pls tell me what you mean by "out of camera", and where ist the lack o.q. -jkb- 16:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blurred --Christian Ferrer 04:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose jpeg artefacts. lack of fine details, blurred. --Cccefalon 05:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Ecce Homo in Dolorosa Jerusalem.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Arch Ecce Homo in Via Dolorosa, Old City, Muslim Quarter, Jedrusalem -jkb- 13:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, yet another out-of-camera jpeg, severe lack of quality --A.Savin 16:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment can you pls tell me what you mean by "out of camera", and where ist the lack o.q. -jkb- 16:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment Out-of-camera means not made from a raw file, not postprocessed. Too look at the photo at full size, click on its preview in image description page and wait until it is completely loaded. Then do the same with any promoted QI (for example by User:Cccefalon) and compare both. --A.Savin 16:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment ok, see the talk page -jkb- 17:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree that this is not a Quality Image. Too much of it is way too fuzzy at full size. -- Ikan Kekek 22:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed area --Christian Ferrer 04:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose jpeg artefacts. lack of fine details, blurred. My advise: Use another camera for participation in QIC. --Cccefalon 05:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Feria_de_Cordoba_(2016)_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cordoba Fair 2016. Attractions. --ElBute 11:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposure of the sky / the Ferris wheel --MartinThoma 12:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, it's intended. I wanted to include the sun in the composition behind the Ferris wheel. --ElBute 12:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose lack of fine details. --Cccefalon 05:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed in the sky, not very sharp, f-value8 is too much. It might have been a good composition if you could rotate the sunshine 180 degrees; under these circumstances sun makes foreground too dark. --Michielverbeek 05:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

File:12-07-12-Washington_National_Cathedral-RalfR-N3S_5682.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Washington National Cathedral --Ralf Roletschek 09:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Composition issue. The unnecessary tilt makes the crop below disturbing IMO. A CR will be interesting.--Jebulon 19:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Jebulon; not a well-composed image. --Peulle 13:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Jebulon, not QI--Lmbuga 16:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 16:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Beach Sainte-Marie-de-Ré Charente-Maritime France.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Beach, Sainte-Marie-de-Ré, Charente-Maritime, France.--Jebulon 19:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Seems slightly out of focus --Domdomegg 21:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment thanks for review, but I disagree. Let's see what others say in CR.--Jebulon 06:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems quite sharp to me. OK for a QI. --Basotxerri 06:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose My eyes are going to the left side and that is not the most interesting part of this photo --Michielverbeek 05:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others: Out of focus and not the best composition (rule of thirds)--Lmbuga 16:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 16:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

File:CFB-Mode-Encryption.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination CFB mode encryption --MartinThoma 04:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: The alignment of the cross in the circle is sloppy. Needs adjustment. Elsewhere, I agree with Hubertl. --Cccefalon 10:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I fixed the cross.--~~~~
  •  Support QI now --Cccefalon 06:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Domdomegg 14:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Fawn of Capra nubiana in Sde Boker 02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination fawn of Capra nubiana in Sde Boker, Israel. --MinoZig 20:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Still a nice portrait, despite cropped ears --A.Savin 02:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: Very unfortunate crop. --Cccefalon 04:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Since this image is promoted even though it's cropped, I support this one. We must be consistent in our judging. --Peulle 10:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment being defiant is a pretty childish reaction. --Cccefalon 11:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment No, I'm just following the rules. Either both images with unfortunate crops are OK, or they are not. --Peulle 12:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cropped ears. --Tsungam 09:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very pity, but cropped ears. --Alchemist-hp 23:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I know consistency is important, but here I believe the ears are too central to be cropped off, one placed right in the middle foreground. Furthermore fly is out of focus and covers face (tough I know). Lastly, something about this image's angle feels strange to me --Domdomegg 22:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see there is no consensus around the QI guidelines; members judge from their own opinions instead. I will therefore follow my own opinion from now on, rather than taking leads from others. Oppose as a result of poor crop.--Peulle 13:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 16:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)