Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 01 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Chata Ropička (by Pudelek).JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Mountain hut Ropička, Moravian-Silesian Beskids --Pudelek 16:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion   SupportGood quality.--Famberhorst 16:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
      Oppose To the right is overexposed. --C messier 18:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
      Oppose Agree with C messier. Big part of the right side of the image is overexposed. --Halavar 22:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor WB. Snow is usually perceived as of white colour. --Kreuzschnabel 20:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    I uploaded a WB-corrected version. --Kreuzschnabel 20:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support a photo against the sun can have blown-out areas. --Ralf Roletschek 18:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support As Ralf Roletschek. --Steindy 22:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I uploaded new version --Pudelek 12:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 12:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Siedziba_rządu_i_prezydenta_Republiki_Abchazji_(01).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The seat of government and the President of the Republic of Abkhazia. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 16:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose I don't think this building is as horizontally crooked in reality as it seems on this picture. --Dnalor 01 16:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      Comment I do not agree. Both walls are straight. Also - please do not use decline when there is something that I can fix with the photo. --Halavar 17:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Needs perspective correction - fixable? --Dnalor 01 18:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    *
  •   Support the verticals are ok, not need for a perspective correction IMO --Christian Ferrer 21:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Per C. Ferrer --DKrieger 21:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's okay for me too after Halavar has corrected the problem I meant (look at the version history!) --Dnalor 01 00:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Livioandronico2013 16:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Per C. Ferrer --Johann Jaritz 03:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Left side is leaning out. Mattbuck 23:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 12:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Vestalis gracilis 06840.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Vestalis gracilis --Vengolis 17:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support - Very good quality. --Dnalor 01 17:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose overexposed area, not very sharp, small DoF --Christian Ferrer 18:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
      Comment The main interest of this picture is the insect, and this one is sharp enough IMO. --Dnalor 01 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support It's good enough. Ram-Man 12:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support GQ IMHO --Palauenc05 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Neutral, I love the wings. But left eye and legs are parts of the insect. –Be..anyone 16:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree with Be-..anyone. Mattbuck 22:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support The Vestalis gracilis is sharp. Sure a QI. --Steindy 22:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 12:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)