Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 15 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Nuestra_Señora_de_las_Nieves.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Estación Abandonada --The Photographer 10:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 10:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp --A.Savin 17:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharpening overdone and still unsharp--Ermell 08:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 10:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --W.carter 14:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Bryce Canyon Inspiration (20).JPG edit

 

  • Nomination "Inspiration" Parc national de Bryce Canyon, dans l' Utah (USA).--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Minimal DoF problem, good quality --The Photographer 11:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective distortion: Trees of the left side--Lmbuga 14:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done Thank you for your advice correction perspective distortion: Trees of the left side.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 20:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Trees are still leaning outwards. And in general too soft for a QI. --Uoaei1 07:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

File:California_sea_lions_in_La_Jolla_(70565).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination California sea lion. The crop of the bird is unfortunate; hopefully it's good enough to merit QI regardless. --Rhododendrites 03:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The top crop is too tight to me, not a QI to me like this, sorry --Poco a poco 17:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Assuming the crop is intentional and the overall quality is acceptable, I believe slight composition issues should not be the only reason to decline, for it is mostly a matter of taste. In my opinion the crop is really somewhat too tight at the top, but I will not decline because of that only. --Smial 18:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Livioandronico2013 20:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 08:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

File:California_sea_lions_in_La_Jolla_(70564).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination California sea lion.As with the other, it's a lousy birdcrop, but perhaps good enough sea lion image for QI. --Rhododendrites 03:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The top crop is too tight to me, not a QI to me like this, sorry --Poco a poco 17:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Assuming the crop is intentional and the overall quality is acceptable, I believe slight composition issues should not be the only reason to decline, for it is mostly a matter of taste. In my opinion the crop is really somewhat too tight at the top, but I will not decline because of that only. --Smial 18:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Livioandronico2013 20:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 08:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Ana_rosa,_São_Paulo_Metro,_Line_blue,_Brazil.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Ana rosa --The Photographer 10:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Too much noise, sorry --Cvmontuy 20:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This image is taken with ISO 800. The noise level is acceptable. Additionally, the picture has a very interesting perspective. --Florian Fuchs 15:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much noise, IMO, sorry. --Basotxerri 19:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much noise and significant CAs all over --Uoaei1 07:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Mycalesis junonia-Thekkady.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mycalesis junonia --Jkadavoor 16:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: Nice, but imo too dark --Moroder 21:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is a great closeup. I'm guessing that's the amount of natural light there was, and it's plenty to be able to see the details on the butterfly. -- Ikan Kekek 22:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good enough, you can see the details. --W.carter 13:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: As Moroder--Lmbuga 14:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Brightened a bit. Moroder, Lmbuga, please look. Jkadavoor 16:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support definitely QI. Charlesjsharp 21:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine. --Palauenc05 08:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 08:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Berlin,_Weiße_Kreuze_an_der_Spree_--_2016_--_5599.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination White crosses at the river Spree (in front of Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders-Haus), Berlin, Germany --XRay 04:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ajepbah 06:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed --A.Savin 16:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I won't contend that it isn't overexposed, only that it looks good (except for the annoying sky, but that's obviously how the sky looked that day). -- Ikan Kekek 23:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Livioandronico2013 17:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Ok, for me. W.carter 13:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support für ein kontra reichts mir nicht, da nur der obere Bereich des Himmels betroffen ist - aber der ist wirklich rein weiß. --Ralf Roletschek 22:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 08:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)