Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 29 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:17-09-05-Þingvellir-Öxarárfoss-RalfR-DSC_2707.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Island, Öxarárfoss im Þingvellir Nationalpark --Ralf Roletschek 17:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The small waterfall at the right is for me not sharp enough for Q1 while other parts are well done --Michielverbeek 04:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Water is realistic, while exposure is about 1/60. It does not always have to be frozen --Ralf Roletschek 18:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think it's OK. -- Ikan Kekek 09:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please remove blue CAs on the upper right of the waterfall. --Basotxerri 16:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me, thank you! --Basotxerri 17:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sandro Halank 16:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Vesuvius_seen_from_Naples.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vesuvius seen from Naples --Livioandronico2013 20:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 20:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment No offence meant, - but I'd like to read more ratings to the sharpness of this image. --PtrQs 00:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment No offence at all but imo sharpness is becoming a tedious issue on QIC while image content, composition etc seem of no value --Moroder 14:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
      •  Comment Maybe that's because QI is mostly for technical quality? We have FP for image content and VI for value :) --Shansov.net 20:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image is overprocessed, probably in-camera noise reduction? Right part is blurred. --Shansov.net 20:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice panorama, but the sharpness not sufficient for me - and that gull and her doppelgangers in the front look very suspicous. --PtrQs 08:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough and there are too many cloning errors. Looks like a boat or something has been cloned out in a bad way in the water. --W.carter 10:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per W.carter --MB-one 10:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 14:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)