Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 13 2017

Consensual review

edit

File:Santuario_de_Las_Lajas,_Ipiales,_Colombia,_2015-07-21,_DD_38-40_HDR.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Waterfall of Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia --Poco a poco 11:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality.Not sharp. Distortions along sides. Overexposed parts. --Shankar Raman 04:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   New version This one is QI to me, you pulled the trigger to early IMHO. Would you reconsider? Poco a poco 11:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Asking for further opinions. The initial version was clearly improved, IMHO over the bar. --Poco a poco 16:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree about the overexposure but that should be easily fixed. More difficult is the distortion on the sides; you'd have to crop out half the image to get rid of it and that doesn't work for anybody.--Peulle 12:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 02:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Hondsrug, De Strubben-Kniphorstbosch 026.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Walk through The Strubben-Kniphorstbos. Information board.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Camera shake. --Tsungam 08:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Tsungam.--Peulle 11:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 03:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Saint-Martin Church of Pinet.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Saint-Martin Church of Pinet, La Cresse, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 17:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality -- Spurzem 17:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment IMO the very blurry bird (or dragon) should be cloned out. --XRay 17:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Tournasol7: Please check your image. --XRay 04:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Not done yet, so let's discuss. --XRay 05:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose until that dragon has been removed. Looks good otherwise.--Peulle 11:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  Comment Sorry, I haven't seen this discussion before. I removed the dragon. Tournasol7 12:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 23:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK now.--Peulle 12:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 03:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Zaubertuba_Triebener_und_Neubauer_17RM0634.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Heiko Triebener and Martin Neubauer are promoting their new program "Bambergeno and the Zaubertuba" in front of the theater in the Old Town House --Ermell 07:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Hmm not sure about this one. It looks good but the crop is a bit tight, cutting off the hand. Please self-evaluate. Btw. should these artists have their own categories?--Peulle 11:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    @Peulle: The faces had to be seen clearly and for categories the artists are not (yet) famous enough--Ermell 13:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
      Weak oppose Regrettably, I think this is the kind of difference you get between a QI and just a snapshot anybody could take; the composition could have been more accurate. But I want to take this to CR to hear other views.--Peulle 13:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. Very expressive und good quality -- Spurzem 06:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Spurzem. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 07:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Funny motif, good quality. --Palauenc05 11:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great! --Smial 15:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose--Way too tight/narrow. Pretty much per Puelle. PumpkinSky 19:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 07:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Palauenc05 08:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Lübeck,_Trave_und_Lübecker_Dom_--_2017_--_0277.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Trave and Lübeck Cathedral, Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany --XRay 03:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Lovely. PumpkinSky 10:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose But not sharp enough for me for Q1 --Michielverbeek 07:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Michielverbeek.--Peulle 10:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting composition und in my opinion sharp enough. -- Spurzem 21:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks enough4QI --A.Savin 13:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Plenty sharp enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Palauenc05 08:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Acidalie_Tourbière_2.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Lewes Wave (Scopula immorata) in the wet grass, Loire. --MirandaAdramin 18:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Others may disagree but since half the insect is out of focus, I'm going to say that I think the DoF is a bit too shallow. Also, there's quite a lot of noise (or is it overprocessed?) --Peulle 18:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Eyes and most drops are sharp enough and the compo is very good --Ermell 07:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ermell. -- Johann Jaritz 07:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ermell. -- Ikan Kekek 19:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Palauenc05 08:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Cirrochroa_aoris_large_yeoman_butterflies_of_pakke_tiger_reserve_JEG2646_.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Cirrochroa aoris_large yeoman_butterflies of pakke tiger reserve. By User:PJeganathan --Shankar Raman 03:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough. Sorry. --Ermell 07:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The body is sharp, about 1/3 of the wings are unfocused; given the reasonably high resolution and the 100mm focal length, I think that's just about good enough for QI.--Peulle 13:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Peulle. -- Johann Jaritz 07:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose seems rather underlit to me. PumpkinSky 20:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Might in fact be underlit, but seems good enough for QI, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 07:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Palauenc05 18:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)