Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 20 2014

Consensual review

edit

File:Bumblebee in Cardamine pratensis.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination a bumblebee in Cardamine pratensis Mariofan13 13:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose badly blurred --A.Savin 13:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, the backgorund is blur, but the bumbelbee and plant aren't blur. I isn't possible to expose so short that you can see the bumblebee's wings. Maybe you declined my images because you got angry at me becuase I overwrite your edit after an edit conflict? Sorry, because of a knoown bug, I didn't see your edit in the diff, I only saw that my posting (nomination of this image) was not saved. Mariofan13 13:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but I left the kindergarten about 30 years ago. I have declined both images purely because of their insufficient quality and I adhere to it. Sorry, but this one is really clearly blurred. You may compare to some existing QI of insects. --A.Savin 14:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose Agree, it's blurred --Christian Ferrer 18:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      OpposeIt is too blurred for a QI I'm afraid. -- KTC 09:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very blurry, sorry.--Jebulon 15:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 15:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Albrecht_Durer_grabstone.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination File:Albrecht_Durer_grabstone.jpg --Vitold Muratov 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose unsharp. --A.Savin 13:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Reasonable sharpness --Vitold Muratov 16:50, 18 April2014 (UTC)
      OpposeCA in the corners--SteveK 10:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  Oppose Sorry no. Unsharp indeed, and sharpening attempt too strong, generating some chromatic noise. Chromatic aberration on the plaque (purple fringe around letters). High EV nevertheless.--Jebulon 14:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 15:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)