Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 07 2017

Consensual review edit

File:Virendra_Saxena.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Virendra Saxena -विरेन्द्र सक्सेना (अथवा वीरेन्द्र सक्सेना) is an Indian theater, film and television actor. He is an alumnus of the National School of Drama. Saxena is known for his character roles as well as his unique voice. --Suyash.dwivedi 20:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. I declined this photo in February because "If it had been only Mr Saxena in the photo, it would have been very good, but there is also part of the head and glasses belonging to someone else and that makes it not a QI". Nothing has been done with the photo since then so my opinion still stands. --W.carter 06:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per W.carter; this is not a portrait, it's 1,1 portraits.--Peulle 15:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. -- Ikan Kekek 05:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined Peulle 10:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Knossos_Thronsaal_08.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Throne room of Knossos, Crete --Oltau 05:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Weak   Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO the flash is disturbing. --XRay 06:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support o.k. IMO. Quite good solution. --Ermell 19:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support, generally I don't like the effect flashes have, but here, the image is sharp and the lighting not too harsh. --Basotxerri 15:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 14:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Fammensrakken Mûzekamp, Boornzwaag 24.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Fammensrakken Mûzekamp, Boornzwaag (Netherlands).
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, not for me a QI. I recognize a badly chosen white balance, violent noise and blurring --Zoppo59 20:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks alright to me. Are you sure you meant to comment on this photo, not another one? I don't see any violent noise or blurring. -- Ikan Kekek 02:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Look at the dark parts of the bushes and shadows. Is this not true, am I wrong? Because of this suffers the sharpness of the reed.--Zoppo59 (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, I see what you're talking about, but it's dark there, so I really had to look carefully. I don't think that's a sufficient reason for me to oppose a promotion, but let's see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek 10:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much noise IMO.--Peulle 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. Perhaps not excellent but QI for me. -- Spurzem 20:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much noise. Sorry, but not a QI to me. --Sandro Halank 10:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have to agree to the noise. --Carschten 18:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done. Noise Reduction Thank you.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support, OK for me. --Basotxerri 08:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice --Moroder 09:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sky might still be a bit noisy, but foreground is well done --Michielverbeek 05:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 10:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)