Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 27 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Mosaic_in_Santa_Prassede_(Rome).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mosaic in Santa Prassede (Rome) --Livioandronico2013 09:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 11:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Isn't it a bit tilted and slightly out of focus? I want more opinions, please. --Kadellar 11:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support For me is good--Σπάρτακος 10:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support For me too.--Jebulon 19:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jebulon 19:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Irisbus Citelis 12 n°183 TAM Saint-Denis.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bus in Montpellier --Billy69150 18:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose missed focus --MB-one 10:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see a problem with the sharpness. --King of Hearts 09:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment This picture is improvable. Sharpening, reducing overexposure, increasing brightness. --Hockei 08:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support not perfect but QI.--Jebulon 21:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Why ISO 800? -- Spurzem 22:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Σπάρτακος 10:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Nsg_amrumer_dünen_rand_mit_vordünen_1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination nature reserve Amrum Dunes --Dirtsc 17:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Sorry, nice view, but there are too many artifacts. --Halavar 18:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't agree. --Dirtsc 18:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the quality isn't good enough. You should rework it from RAW. --Hockei 08:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm sorry, but there is no RAW-file to that image. And of course I don't understand the quick decision and I can't see your quality problems. By the way, they are not explained. I can't find your "artifacts" and "quality ... not good enough" is only a decision and gives no real explanation. Greetings. --Dirtsc 11:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    •   Comment Es wurde noch keine Entscheidung getroffen, wir befinden uns noch mitten im gemeinsamen Diskussionsprozess. Die endgültige Entscheidung wird erst Anfang Juni festgelegt. Die untenstehenden Zahlen geben nur den aktuellen Zwischenstand wider. Tipp, Dirtsc, schau dir die Guidelines bzgl. der geforderten Bildqualität an. Du kannst auch die beiden Diskutanten auf ihrer Userdisk fragen. --Hubertl 12:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 10:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Lsg_amrum_strand_nebel.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Eastern shore of the north-frisian island Amrum, beach near Nebel --Dirtsc 17:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Sorry, nice view, but there are too many artifacts. --Halavar 18:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't agree. --Dirtsc 18:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the quality isn't good enough. You should rework it from RAW. --Hockei 08:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm sorry, but there is no RAW-file to that image. And of course I don't understand the quick decision and I can't see your quality problems. By the way, they are not explained. I can't find your "artifacts" and "quality ... not good enough" is only a decision and gives no real explanation. Greetings. --Dirtsc 11:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    •   Comment Es wurde noch keine Entscheidung getroffen, wir befinden uns noch mitten im gemeinsamen Diskussionsprozess. Die endgültige Entscheidung wird erst Anfang Juni festgelegt. Die untenstehenden Zahlen geben nur den aktuellen Zwischenstand wider. Tipp, Dirtsc, schau dir die Guidelines bzgl. der geforderten Bildqualität an. Du kannst auch die beiden Diskutanten auf ihrer Userdisk fragen. --Hubertl 12:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I like the composition, but there are artifacts, have a look at the grass/bushes on the left side. --DKrieger 16:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 04:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Notocactus uebelmannianus Kh.499 (Khanon-201 select).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Notocactus uebelmannianus (Parodia werneri) - plant selection (large flowers, bright violet color). --Финитор 12:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Insufficient quality. Below the minimum resolution of 4 mp. --Crisco 1492 01:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)   Done resolution-600 Thank you. --Финитор 11:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    Resolution (number of megapixels), not file size.Crisco 1492 00:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)   Done --Финитор 14:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    I've uploaded a new version (a bit of middle ground), but this makes me too involved to pass the nom. Second opinion neededCrisco 1492 23:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Resolution is good. --Ralf Roletschek 08:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 09:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Tere schoonheid van de Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' bloem. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei 01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Delicate beauty of the Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' flower. Location. Garden sanctuary JonkerValley.
    Famberhorst 04:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion

  SupportA few dark but good --Livioandronico2013 06:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC) *  Oppose I disagree, it is really too dark and underexposed.--Jebulon 19:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Yes, it's underexposed. --Berthold Werner 06:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    *  Done Correctie WB. --Famberhorst 15:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO OK now. --XRay 17:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support after correction. --Hubertl 10:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Enough for QI, but still too dark IMO. I strike my oppose, but cannot support, sorry.--Jebulon 21:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 09:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Daruma doll, cut out, 01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Japanese Daruma doll Crisco 1492 08:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Neutral Not good enough for a studio work. No DOF, edges are completely unsharp. --Hubertl 09:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    Since this is a focus stack, I think it's the cut-out. Fixed.Crisco 1492 15:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I changed to neutral, because in my opinion, it is not just the cut out, its more the problem with the lighting, which made this a bit unclear. I understand it very good, that especially with this surface (and this color too!) it is really difficult to get clear edges.--Hubertl 06:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed. My first and foremost goal was to avoid blowing the reds... *shudder* but in the end it just didn't look right. A black background may work a bit better in the future. I'll have to consider that.Crisco 1492 07:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support --Σπάρτακος 10:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Daruma doll, cut out, 02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Japanese Daruma doll Crisco 1492 08:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Neutral Not good enough for a studio work. No DOF, edges are completely unsharp. --Hubertl 09:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    Since this is a focus stack, I think it's the cut-out. Fixed.Crisco 1492 15:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I changed to neutral, because in my opinion, it is not just the cut out, its more the problem with the lighting, which made this a bit unclear. I understand it very good, that especially with this surface (and this color too!) it is really difficult to get clear edges.--Hubertl 06:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support --Σπάρτακος 10:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)