Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 25 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Silver-washed_fritillary_butterfly_(Argynnis_paphia)_male_3.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Silver-washed fritillary (Argynnis paphia) male --Charlesjsharp 21:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good composition and good quality -- Spurzem 22:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The noise artefacts below, the shadow on the head and the black background are not QI for me. --Hockei 20:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment The composition shows both topside and underside of wing, with both in focus. The black background (which I like) is completely intentional even though you don't like it Andreas! Charlesjsharp 21:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't understand the contra. For me this image is very good. -- Spurzem 06:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 06:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I wrote what the reason is for me, didn't I? What is there not understandable? The sharpness was never the problem and the composition neither. --Hockei 10:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 05:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Cute Monkey.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Monkey (Bonnet macaque) -- Mydreamsparrow 10:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice but can you please add the species of the animal? Poco a poco 10:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Nice and good quality -- Spurzem 12:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, no species, no QI to me. --Poco a poco 13:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment For me , it's a young bonnet macaque (Macaca radiata) . --Clément Bardot 15:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      Comment   Done Bonnet macaque it is -- Mydreamsparrow 17:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    Mydreamsparrow, I have added this information to the description page (that is what counts! this talk will vanish soon). Please, add also a category about the location. You cannot just categorize an image like "Monkeys" and hope to pass through QI, we need accurate information to make possible a reuse of this image Poco a poco 19:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would suggest a tighter crop on the top.--Hubertl 07:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Per Hubertl. Needs a better composition. Sharpness and cuteness are not enough for QI, please read the guidelines.--Jebulon 14:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support now ok --Hubertl 05:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 08:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Now I can support.--Jebulon 16:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Per my vote at FPC. Daniel Case 05:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I am confused, the description pages is very poor. Does a nice picture need no proper description, categories,...? I thought that it is a MUST. On the other side, and independently of the fact that this picture will become QI and FP, Mydreamsparrow is it so much work to add some more information and categories (at least the location)? Poco a poco 10:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Poca a poco. Denis Barthel 15:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 07:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)