Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 28 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Hyd Metro Bharat Nagar.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Bharat Nagar Metro Station under construction in Hyderabad.--Nikhilb239 17:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Perspective is not bad, but the clarity could be better. Lacking signature reason enough for declining? --Peulle 13:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Wtf is "clarity" and why is this image at consensual review without any votes? -- Smial 09:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I don't feel like answering questions put in such rude manner; this is Wikimedia, not your local gaming chat. My vote is to support, unless the lack of correct signature means disqualification. --Peulle 10:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment Please read the rules for QI, Peulle. As I told you two days ago: Either pro or contra. If you want to explain something, use the comment. Thats all and pretty easy. Use the Discuss option only then, when someone decided wrong in your opinion. These are the rules everyone follows. I decided now in short. Unusual, but I dare. Everyone who likes, may overrule me now. --Hubertl 17:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 17:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:PinzadepuntaDowenPaggioCrossman-abr2016-1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Needle-nose pliers brand Crossman Dowen Paggio professional --Ezarate 14:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Lacks focus on tip of pliers and parts of the handle. --Peulle 15:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment RAW reprocessed --Ezarate 00:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment Since the image has been edited after the first review, let's take it to consensual review so other opinions can be heard. --Peulle 16:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed: there is a circular area with heavy oversharpening. Tip of the pliers is unsharp. Imho not fixable. -- Smial 13:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 17:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Drammenselva fra Landfalløya 1.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination The Drammen river in Norway, seen from the Landfalløya bridge. --Peulle 12:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • {{o}} Below minimum size. --Palauenc05 09:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC) My mistake --Palauenc05 20:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment This image is NOT below the minimum size requirement of 2 megapixels. The full size version is 3,008 × 2,000 pixels. If you wish to oppose the nomination of this image, please do so based on its quality. --Peulle 16:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)   Question
  •   Oppose It´s above minimum size. But is this the sharpness you expect from a QI? --Milseburg 16:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment That's not for me to say, since I submitted the image. Other users must review it - I look forward to comments. :) --Peulle 17:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, sharpness not good enough. Too much water, please choose one third water. May be better with f/8 or f/11. JPEG artifacts. Please upload the image without compression. --XRay 17:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Like XRay, not sharp enough. Please redevelop photo from RAW and choose for a better sharpness and noise reduction --Michielverbeek 05:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 04:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Burrard_Station_05.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Hyatt Regency Hotel from Burrard Skytrain Station, Vancouver, Canada --Xicotencatl 21:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose The subject matter (the hotel) is obscured by a tree. --Peulle 14:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support That's obviously the intended effect. --Palauenc05 11:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment Sorry, I disagree - there is nothing in the image title indicating that there should be a tree in the way. If I took a photo of a church from behind a tree, making the church barely visible, there is no way it would be regarded as QI if the title said 'church seen from the park'. --Peulle 14:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support good idea and quality. --Ralf Roletschek 08:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Enzyklopädisch fraglich, aber trotz dem ein super Schuss. --Steschke 19:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 04:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_Prowincja_Tawusz,_Klasztor_Hagarcin_(04).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Holy Mother of God church (Surb Astvatsatsin). Haghartsin Monastery. Dilijan National Park, Tavush Province, Armenia. --Halavar 16:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good composition, but...
  •   Oppose...the focus seems off, e.g. on the spire. --Peulle 16:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 07:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support No serious quality problems. Very nice lighting. I'm very happy, the image is not oversharpened. -- Smial 11:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 11:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 19:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 13:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Ferrocarril_en_el_salar_de_Carcote,_Chile,_2016-02-09,_DD_70.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Train FCAB with engines EMD GR12 2402, Clyde GL26C-2 2010 and Clyde GL26C-2 2005 over the Carcote salt flat, Chile --Poco a poco 08:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Too much noise, especially on the train. --Peulle 16:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support O.K. for me --Ermell 18:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support With all due respect, but "Noise" is something else. This picture is maybe FP. --Hubertl 07:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 08:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Dark parts of this pic (unfortunately on the loco itself) are indeed a bit noisy, but I don't thnik this disturbs the overall picture too much. --Jacek79 19:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've uploded a new version applying some selective denoising Poco a poco 17:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 19:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 13:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)