Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 28 2017

Consensual review edit

File:Guépier_d'Europe_ichkeul.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination European bee-eater (Merops apiaster) at Ichkeul national park --El Golli Mohamed 16:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. (Small file) --XRay 17:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not good enough considering the small size, IMO. The beak isn't quite sharp and the plumage looks oversharpened.--Peulle 20:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle --Milseburg 06:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle -- Ikan Kekek 07:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 06:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

File:20160802_-_Rhesus_macaque_-_Mount_Popa,_Myanmar_-_7064.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Rhesus macaque at Mount Popa monastery in Myanmar --Jakubhal 20:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality --Halavar 21:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not in focus. Charlesjsharp 21:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek 07:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 06:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Reh_im_Dickicht.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Amazing face --Joschi71 13:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Ein Glückstreffer! Bei einem Foto, das zweifellos als Schnappschuß zu qualifizieren ist, muß dem Motiv Priorität vor der Qualität eingeräumt werden. Good quality for me.--Manfred Kuzel 15:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality imo --A.Savin 16:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture! --Arthur Crbz 20:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a very nice capture, but the technical quality is not high enough for QI since there is too much noise and the subject is not quite in focus.--Peulle 07:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Head (especially the eyes) unsharp, not good enough for QI. In an image like this, it would be better to tone down the highlights and to tone up the shadows. --Basotxerri 18:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor technical quality. Charlesjsharp 15:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles and others. -- Ikan Kekek 07:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 06:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Біла_скеля_42.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Belaya Rock in Crimea --Anntinomy 12:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support GQ --Palauenc05 16:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CAs on the right side, al lot of birds (visible as unsharp spots, should be removed) aroud the rock --Llez 17:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Granted, I may be missing the CA, but the birds are OK in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Green cast? --A.Savin 01:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed, the WB looks akward Poco a poco 09:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
      Oppose then --A.Savin 09:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    Comparing this photo to others like File:"Біла скеля".JPG and File:Біла скеля, Крим.jpg, I see what you mean. -- Ikan Kekek 12:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 06:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Sanctuaire de Rocamadour 24.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sanctuaire de Rocamadour, Lot, France. --Tournasol7 17:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  Oppose Nice photo, but top of the tower ia not sharp enough for me, unfortunately no Q1 --Michielverbeek 05:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support More than sharp enough for me, especially with regard to the high resolution, please discuss. --Tuxyso 19:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but this looks overprocessed to me.--Peulle 07:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality! Über manche Bewertungen – seien sie positiv oder negativ – kann ich mich nur wundern. -- Spurzem 11:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Definitely a QI 4 me. --Palauenc05 12:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK. --A.Savin 01:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco a poco 09:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Sandro Halank 22:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 06:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Havudsigt_fra_Tversted_Plantage_ved_Skiveren.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sea view from Tversted Plantation at Skiveren --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   OpposeToo noisy IMO. Tournasol7 17:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. A moderate level of noise is inevitable with such high DR situations. --Tuxyso 19:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much chroma noise in darker areas Poco a poco 09:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose with others --Zoppo59 04:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 06:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Rotterdam, het Hofplein vlak voor het einde van de kampioenswedstrijd IMG 6779 2017-05-14 16.02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Rotterdam, square (het Hofplein) just before the end of the match for championship --Michielverbeek 23:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Distracting calbes IMO, sorry --Cvmontuy 01:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think the poles are OK. They're part of the scene, and a shot of this whole crowd from this angle would be impossible without having them in the shot. Besides, I find the resulting forms interesting. -- Ikan Kekek 08:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan thanks for your comment, I try to show square Hofplein just before the celebrations were starting --Michielverbeek 10:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --C messier 19:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Manfred Kuzel 04:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I may support of the subject had been the poles but it is the square and it is definitely not the best spot to depict it, sorry. Poco a poco 09:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 06:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000-gebied provincie Friesland 06.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000 area of Friesland province. Heavy rain showers above the nature reserve. --Famberhorst 16:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Neutral Clouds are noisy, no enough detail, sorry --Cvmontuy 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done. New version. Thank you.--Famberhorst 17:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 07:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Clouds are well done --Michielverbeek 19:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support as sharpness ist just at the threshold Poco a poco 09:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 06:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Casino_(enneigé)_-_Challes-les-Eaux,_2017_(2).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The casino of Challes-les-Eaux, under snow, on January 10, 2017. --Lev. Anthony 22:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Bonne qualité, selon moi. -- Ikan Kekek 04:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice scenery, but may I disagree about the quality? --A.Savin 10:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course you may. My operating assumption is that the photo was taken while it was snowing fairly heavily. If I'm wrong, there's distortion that looks like snowfall, and in that case, you are right to assert poor quality and oppose promotion. -- Ikan Kekek 12:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I understand your assumption but I fear that what you see is a combination of low light, small sensor and aggressive noise reduction.   Oppose, sorry. --Basotxerri 14:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose per A.Savin --Sandro Halank 10:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Technical quality should be better but I see an appealing composition and good colors. -- Spurzem 21:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many noise reduction artifacts.--C messier 19:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We are at QI, it IS about technical quality --Poco a poco 09:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's fairly close for me, given the bad weather conditions, but in the end I think the quality isn't quite high enough.--Peulle 11:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose →   Declined   ----A.Savin 06:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)