Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 01 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Sternberg-Bildhäuschen-8145360-HDR.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Wayside shrine in Sternberg --Ermell 14:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • {{o}} I'm sorry, IMO this is not enough for QI. The image has some noise and some of the flowers are motion blurred. --Basotxerri 18:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment
      You are right. Upload of the wrong file by mistake. Please have a look again.--Ermell 21:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm going to put this in CR because I've no idea what to do in these cases. I think CR will be the most correct... Anyway, it's OK for me now. --Basotxerri 17:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The red flowers a just a tiny bit on the posterized side but overall this is QI to me. W.carter 10:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 18:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support well done! --Hubertl 15:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 00:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-007.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Archibasis oscillans tandem --Jkadavoor 03:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I don't think conditions made it is possible to get a QI.   Comment no signature, therefore striked. --Hubertl 05:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose insufficient quality Charlesjsharp 07:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support a bit soft but ok --Christian Ferrer 18:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Why "insufficient quality"? Where's the problem? OK for QI. --A.Savin 06:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 12:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Archibasis oscillans-Kadavoor-2016-07-03-008.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Archibasis oscillans ovipositing --Jkadavoor 03:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I don't think conditions made it is possible to get a QI, even using flash.   Comment no signature, therefore striked. --Hubertl 05:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose insufficient quality. Charlesjsharp 07:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Sufficient quality. --A.Savin 06:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 12:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Vreden,_Zwillbrocker_Venn_--_2016_--_4122.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Nature reserve “Zwillbrocker Venn” (BOR-008), Vreden, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   SupportGood quality. --Jkadavoor 03:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't think this is QI yet; half the sky is overexposed. --СССР 00:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Is this a comment or an oppose? --XRay 05:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment When it´s here, it was an oppose, XRay. Can you check it again please, СССР? --Hubertl 06:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've checked the histogram. It's OK. But I've just uploaded an image with (minor) improvements in the sky. --XRay 05:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Big parts of the sky still without any detail. Schade, das Licht war für die Landschaft selbst eigentlich sehr nett. --Smial 08:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO, regarding the faults to the complete composition, it is acceptable for QI. This should be the moment for using a grey filter with an hard edge. --Hubertl 09:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for QI. --A.Savin 06:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 12:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)