Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 29 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Melampus coffea 01.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Shell of a Coffee Bean Snail, Melampus coffea --Llez 17:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Upper side (IMO) is not sharp enough for an studio picture (see notes)--Lmbuga 17:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose It has been said (see notes): Blurry for an studio picture. Sorry--Lmbuga 17:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Can you try to take the picture again, please? I say this because your photos are usually wonderful--Lmbuga 18:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment The quality depends also on the size of the shell. This shell has only 1 cm, I don't think a new trial will improve the quality much (that's the reason why I normally I don't nominate shells between about 1 cm and about 1 mm for QI). So I better {{withdraw}}
      •   Comment Sorry, if you say the size... In my opinion, you are one of the most important contributors in Commons (sorry)--Lmbuga 18:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
        •   Comment Don't worry, I have still enought shells... -Llez 18:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportGood quality, the subject only has 1 cm., and the picture has 7,500 × 5,514 pixels--Lmbuga 18:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks --Llez 19:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 05:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Lokschuppen-Bamberg-3139400.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Old engine shed in Bamberg --Ermell 07:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There are some blue halos Poco a poco 08:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good sharpness; where are the halos? --Peulle 12:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Poco a poco:   Done
      Fixed. Thanks for your reviews--Ermell 13:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
      •   Support Looking good now. For the record: I didn't oppose Poco a poco 19:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 18:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_Church-St.Maria-Königin-01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: Baptisterium of St. Maria Königin (Köln-Marienburg) --Cccefalon 05:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --A.Savin 13:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • *   Comment   Support Good focus on the subject matter, but...   Oppose some glare in the transition between the water gutter and the bell tower. --Peulle 13:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Peulle: Please consider two things: If you want to discuss, please use the {{Comment}}-Template , not two votes. And if someone starts a dispute with a nominator about some quality issues, don´t overrule this with any decisions until the dispute is finished. --Hubertl 08:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC) @Hubertl: Thank you. I'm still learning the rules of this process, thanks for the input. --Peulle 14:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Blue halos/in the transition between the water gutter and the bell tower. --Peulle 14:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 22:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good focus to main object, but sky is a bit blurred. Quality high enough for a Q1photo --Michielverbeek 05:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition, good lighting, good sharpness -- Spurzem 20:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Peulle. + some noise.--Jebulon 09:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 18:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Leap Motion Orion Controller Plugged.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Leap Motion controller SkywalkerPL 14:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality, crisp and sharp. --Peulle 18:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. It is just above 2 megapixels, but a big part of the frame is only white background. The level of detail is not really satisfactory. --A.Savin 08:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    •   Done uploaded higher res version. QICbot (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
      •   Question Since when is a bot eligible to interfere in CR and upload new versions? --Cccefalon 05:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Ugh.... it wasn't bot, it was me. No idea why it got signed by the bot. In either case: sorry for any confusion. --SkywalkerPL 09:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Whoever uploaded the new version — the detail is hardly better than in previous one. Sorry --A.Savin 12:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm confused if you realize what is the subject of the photograph. That's how this thing looks like. Reflection on the screen is also real (I used black to white circular, backlit gradient generated by the SoftBox Pro iPad app). But fair enough. --SkywalkerPL 19:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support New version is ok. -- Smial 09:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 18:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)