Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 10 2017

Consensual review edit

File:2017-06-09_WikiBär,_Eröffnungsfeier_(18)_(freddy2001).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Eröffnungsfeier des WikiBär --Freddy2001 19:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose noise, the hair isn't sharp --Ezarate 21:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. On my monitore it is sharp but naturally a bit noisy due to 3200 ISO. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 11:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Noise is normal for portrait, and hair is never completely sharp, because its portrait.--PetarM 11:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Face seems sharp, but it's noisy. Could you reduce the noise a bit?--Peulle 11:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 03:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Kastelholm-aerial-2017-midsommar-2.png edit

 

  • Nomination Kastelholm Castle, aerial view --Vitaly repin 19:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Blurry, unsharp, lack of detail, not a QI for me. --Basotxerri 20:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I send this one to CR. The preview looks bad, but IMO the full size image can be improved with a little tweaking (saturation, contrast). --Tsungam 07:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment No problem, let's see. --Basotxerri 16:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose currently. Maybe fixable.--Peulle 20:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficiently sharp. Good attempt at composition though. --Cyali 00:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose--Famberhorst 07:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good composition but no good quality. -- Spurzem 08:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Certainly no good example of drone photo, I'm sorry --A.Savin 13:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but not good quality, --Tournasol7 12:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 03:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Château de Guédelon (France) en mai 2014 et moutons.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Castel of Guédelon. Photo taken by Benoît Prieur. Vanoot59 00:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. There are no details. Sharpness should be improved too. --XRay 05:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I was about to promote this photo. I think the focus on the castle itself is adequate, though the photo is small. -- Ikan Kekek 05:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's not terrible, but in the end I think XRay has a point: for a subject that is standing still, we should demand more detail, especially since the resolution is not very high either.--Peulle 23:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. I think it is sharp enough and I like the composition. -- Spurzem 14:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A rather good smartphone image, and a nice composition. But in the past we have rejected images with less noise, less denoising and sharpening artifacts, less posterization, but higher resolution. This is a typical "easy-to-take" shot, and I would demand at least 4 MPixels, better six MPixels. --Smial 13:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 22:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Palauenc05. -- Johann Jaritz 07:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great scene --PetarM 11:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 12:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)