Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 06 2015

Consensual review edit

File:2014.09.20.-03-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Kleine Raubfliege-Maennchen.jpg edit

 

File:Trostburg_Stiegenaufgang_innen.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination The castle Trostburg in South Tyrol - Interior --Moroder 19:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 23:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. I don´t see Insufficiency, except some understandable noise in the dark areas. --Hubertl 05:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Perhaps it should not be so bright but it is QI for me. -- Spurzem 12:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry,but too blurry for me--Σπάρτακος 12:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too unsharp and noisy. Alvesgaspar 21:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me.- All black and white shades are good --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 17:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Steindy 23:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Half the ISO and double the exposure Time would have made this image come out in a better quality. --Ilmfoto 14:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't understand the subject of the picture (Seeing dates of the picture). As Alvesgaspar is too unsharp and noisy IMO. --Lmbuga 23:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    •   Comment I'm not sure I understand your question: the subject is the interior (architecture) of a castle probably 700 years old as written in the file description. I don't see anything wrong with the dates?! --Moroder 08:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I just wanted to ask more accurate description. I also have inaccuracies in my pictures, because English--Lmbuga 17:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC). Sorry, perhaps an inopportune comment--Lmbuga 17:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not convinced with sharpness, noise, and unfortunate lighting. -- Smial 10:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 20:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)