Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 07 2016

Consensual review edit

File:16-03-31-Hebron-Altstadt-RalfR-WAT_5717.jpg edit

 

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Archi38 14:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santa_Maria_della_Steccata_(Parma)_-_Dome.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Santa Maria della Steccata (Parma) - Dome --Livioandronico2013 07:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose With these blown parts not QI for me --Ermell 08:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment A small part isn't important for all the photo in my opinion,others please --Livioandronico2013 09:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I'm opposed too. Particularly the right side looks distorted, and the lower right corner is completely ruined. Perhaps this is a case where cropping is warranted, leaving only the middle part. --Peulle 09:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 07:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Ceiling_of_the_chapel_of_Farnese_in_Santa_Maria_della_Steccata_(Parma).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Ceiling of the chapel of Farnese in Santa Maria della Steccata (Parma) --Livioandronico2013 07:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Cut off at the main part of the subject. --Ermell 08:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think Ermell is right; the crop is too tight and cuts off part of the main subject: the yellow ceiling. Please see "composition" section of the [Guidelines] for info. --Peulle 10:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 07:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Agrobate_roux_au_Parc_National_de_l'Ichkeul_(Tunisia).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Agrobate roux (Cercotrichas galactotes) Rufous-tailed Scrub Robin (Parc National de l'Ichkeul (Tunisia)). --El Golli Mohamed 15:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 16:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: Oversharpening halos. --Cccefalon 05:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As for Cccfalon. (Overprocessed) -- Smial 14:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 14:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Tourterelle_maillée_au_Parc_National_de_l'Ichkeul.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Tourterelle maillée (Spilopelia senegalensis) - Laughing Dove --El Golli Mohamed 12:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 14:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I fixed the not specific category (Birds). --C messier 11:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: This image is badly oversharpened. Please have a look at the boundaries between bird and background. Also jpeg artefacts and at the top right corner the use of a tool is traceable. --Cccefalon 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As for Cccfalon. -- Smial 13:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 14:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Lunar_Rainbow_at_Victoria_Falls_HP_L2778e2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lunar rainbow, Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe --Alchemist-hp 00:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Far too dark --Ermell 07:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO the darkness is OK for this kind of image. It's a good picture and QI for this situation. --XRay 08:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I'll go along with that; it's almost a night shot, this. Good enough for QI. --Peulle 09:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 07:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It's not like we're letting hundreds of super dark photos through. This is clearly an exceptional case for what it is. Ram-Man 16:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question Could the chromatic noise in the sky be corrected ? It is my first lunar rainbow and I would like to support it...--Jebulon 16:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    I tested it, but with no better results. But feel free to try it by self. It was a night shoot at ISO 3200 and 10s exposure time with one of the best cameras ;-) Very difficult conditions. --Alchemist-hp 21:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, hot pixels. Also chroma noise should be reduced. -- Smial 13:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    @Smial: some "last" hot pixels removed. Aber das "chroma noise" schaffe "ich" leider nicht vernünftig zu eliminieren, ohne dass das Bild total "vermatscht". --Alchemist-hp 21:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    • mir geht es ebenso. Kommt nur Matsch bei raus. --Ralf Roletschek 06:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    Ok, weak   Support. Hot Pixels is a no-go, that is fixed. -- Smial 07:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support despite the difficult situation, no doubt. --Hubertl 06:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 21:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)