Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 01 2016

Consensual review edit

File:NSG-Mainaue-Augsfeld-5154034.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination FFH Area Mainaue bei Augsfeld --Ermell 14:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   SupportGood quality. --A.Savin 15:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I'm not sure and I'm not one, but in my opinion it's overpreocessed--Lmbuga 16:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • {o} I agree, processing is overdone.--Jebulon 23:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Opposition removed, after a second thought and convincing argumentation.--Jebulon 10:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment
      There is not much processing done on the two images. The sun is placed on the front top left which gives the reed a glowing effect. The sky had to be darkened to avoid burned out parts. I don´t see any QI limitations. Your estimated opinion seems to be just subjective for me. Thanks for the review anyway.--Ermell 07:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support In my opinion this kind of performance is ok in this setting. --Milseburg 12:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful image and good quality -- Spurzem 22:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice --Moroder 19:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 12:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Fawn of Capra nubiana in Sde Boker 03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination fawn of Capra nubiana in Sde Boker, Israel. --MinoZig 20:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Hubertl 20:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yet another image with tight crop. Bringing it to CR so people can follow the discussion as to whether these images should be promoted or declined. --Peulle 22:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Cccefalon: @Tsungam: @Alchemist-hp: @Hubertl: @A.Savin: @C messier: People, let's make sure we give these two images (see below) the same treatment: both images have tight crops on the ears, and thus either they are both QI or neither one is.--Peulle 10:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
      • You rather give your judgement than giving the moderator ... --Cccefalon 10:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ears piercing the image border. Too tight crop, not a QI for me. --Cccefalon 10:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support What's wrong with this picture? OK for me. Quality is good, that's essential, as it is not an FPC nomination. --A.Savin 13:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Would be better with ears not cropped, but still a QI for me. --Domdomegg 22:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose OK, 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 13:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad crop: too tight. Nice subject and perhaps nice picture, but bad composition IMO--Lmbuga 16:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
      Comment I don't like the DOF, but f/8. Not QI for me, sorry--Lmbuga 16:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cccefalon --Moroder 09:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 06:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:16-04-04-Felsendom-Tempelberg-Jerusalem-RalfR-WAT_6522.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount Jerusalem --Ralf Roletschek 22:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry, but after thinking about it, I'm leaning towards oppose, on account of the disturbing ruins in the foreground. --Peulle 08:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment this are not ruins, its are "al-mawazin" and part of all. --Ralf Roletschek 17:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 05:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Domdomegg 22:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It needs a bit of perspective correction: It's disturbing IMO.--Lmbuga 16:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Despite the weird composition (I know Ralf does not want to corrupt his images) ;-D --Moroder 09:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp 16:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 06:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)