Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 24 2015

Consensual review

edit

File:Corrosión_por_exfoliación_en_aluminio_-_03.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Exfoliation corrosion in a piece of aluminium. The piece's width is around 14 mm. --Kadellar 00:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose A pity for the interesting corrosion, but the left part of the image is totally out of focus --Cccefalon 07:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
      Comment Thanks for the review, Cccefalon, I forgot to mention that the piece bends in the shape of an L, about 2 or 3 cm; I'll add it to the description. Can you review the picture again, please?--Kadellar 10:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
      Comment The description does not heal the shallow DoF ... To get a suitable sharpness you either have to use other distance/settings or use focus stacking. For now, it is not a QI imo. --Cccefalon 11:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
      Comment That's a bit like asking for the ear to be sharp in a close up of the eyes. That part of the piece wasn't interesting at all. I'd like to hear more opinions, please. --Kadellar 00:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 00:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:15-10-31-Juliana-WMA_3213a.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Porträtfoto --Ralf Roletschek 09:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 10:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
      Comment Please don´t upload pictures from a minor aged girl less than 18 without permission from her parents! --Hubertl 14:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Clarity innecessarily too low, unreal look. --Kadellar 01:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
      Comment But if that is the effect the photographer was going for and they succeeded, then isn't that good quality? I also noticed the "unreal" look before anything. B137 08:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 07:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Vikoula5 10:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it despite the unfocused nose, which is the price to pay for such large aperture. Good work. Alvesgaspar 18:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 00:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Wolf_OS_01.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Wolf in the zoological park of Osnabrück --Basotxerri 16:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Medium69 14:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Jpeg artifacts, lack of sharpness. --Kadellar 01:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp. Alvesgaspar 18:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 00:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal_Lise-Meitner-Str_0012.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Lise-Meitner-Straße, Wuppertal --Atamari 20:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment tilted cw, not centered, please check --Hubertl 23:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Comment Trapezoidal memorial stone --Atamari 10:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC),
      Comment ok, not centered. --Hubertl 14:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Not done --Medium69 13:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. I know a lot of photos of cheese which are not centered and QI though. And the cheese does not look in one or another direction. The person on that monument looks to the right, so it is absolutely usual, to position the main object, if it is a person or an image of a person, NOT exactly in the center. --Smial 13:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not centered by accident, IMO. This issue has nothing to do with free space in this case. --Hubertl 05:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    •   Comment In most cases it is demanded to avoid central composition but to use golden ratio or rule of thirds. Here the photographer chose golden ratio and it is wrong. ymmd. -- Smial 09:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but this photo is not using the golden ratio. --Medium69 13:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not because of composition or framing (which look fair enough) but because of poor lighting, making the subject hardly visible. -- Alvesgaspar 15:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC) (a mistake, sorry. Alvesgaspar 09:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC))
  •   Support Actually the lighting angle is good. --Iifar 17:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose low quality (JPG artifacts) --Carschten 17:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 00:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Cochevis_huppé001.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Cochevis huppé Galerida cristata - Crested Lark --El Golli Mohamed 16:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The reflection in the eye does not suit me. --Medium69 15:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Contrast should be better. Despite that QI for me.--Ermell 08:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support as per Ermell, a little bit of contrast and more light could help, but still QI as it is IMO --Christian Ferrer 09:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      Done contrast corrected --El Golli Mohamed 16:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark! Give it some more light and you will se how the image improves dramatically and the subject gains a new life! -- Alvesgaspar 15:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Done more light --El Golli Mohamed 19:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support obviously. --Kadellar 01:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Better but I would increase light further. A question of taste, I suppose. Alvesgaspar 18:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 22:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)