Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 27 2015

Consensual review

edit

File:Museo_Field,_Chicago,_Illinois,_Estados_Unidos,_2012-10-20,_DD_02.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois, USA --Poco a poco 20:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose see note - i don´t know what it is, but this part of the pic is not very nice --Rolf H. 04:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    That is a bush. I have uploaded a new version with less denoising, please, let me know what you think Poco a poco 19:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment In comparison with the File:Museo Field, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 01.jpg it does not look good, but I don´t want to decide alone - second Opinion? --Rolf H. 10:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support The File:Museo Filed .. is concentrating on the building. Here the main focus is the pole. And IMHO this pole is good quality

--ArishG 13:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  •   Support ok for me. --Hubertl 06:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cccefalon 15:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 02:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Larus michahellis, Kavala, Greece 2013.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis), Kavala, Greece --Biso 09:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)]] 08:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Oversharpened and posterized areas. --Cccefalon 10:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support For me it is QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 10:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If this is QI, I'm bald--Livioandronico2013 14:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Oversharpened and too small DoF. --XRay 17:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 08:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Thomisus lobosus 08501.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Thomisus lobosus --Vengolis 04:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 04:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not too bright or overexposed? Please discuss. -- Spurzem 21:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No QI for me. -- Spurzem 09:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. It isn't burned, but highlights could be reduced. --C messier 14:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 02:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Robert Seidel VIS2015.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Video artist Robert Seidel at VIS 2015. --Tsui 22:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. The right ear is very unsharp IMHO --Ezarate 23:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. The right ear is not the subject. See f/2.8 --Hubertl 03:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree with Hubertl,DoF is good for this kind of pictures --Livioandronico2013 16:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support good DoF. --Ralf Roletschek 07:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 08:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)