Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 12 2016

Consensual review edit

File:16-04-04-Detail-Felsendom-Jerusalem-RalfR-WAT_6358.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount Jerusalem; Detailed Picture --Ralf Roletschek 10:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the patterns are not in focus --A.Savin 11:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too soft. -- Smial 07:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 09:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

File:16-04-04-Detail-Felsendom-Jerusalem-RalfR-WAT_6360.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount Jerusalem; Detailed Picture --Ralf Roletschek 10:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose focus problems --A.Savin 10:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too soft. --Smial 07:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 09:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

File:16-04-04-Detail-Felsendom-Jerusalem-RalfR-WAT_6362.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount Jerusalem; Detailed Picture --Ralf Roletschek 10:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Chromatic aberrations everywhere on the Arabic inscriptions; best removed with Lightroom (lens corrections) --A.Savin 11:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Somewhat soft and possibly random composition, but those microscopic remains of CA are really negligible. -- Smial 07:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 09:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Evangelisches-Krankenhaus-Muelheim-2016.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Protestant hospital of Mülheim an der Ruhr --Tuxyso 05:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry, insufficient quality. Bad light - and look at the higher parts of the street lamp. --Rolf H. 16:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment Rolf H., could you please clarify which criterion of QI is violated? The problem on the street lamp is fixable. --Tuxyso 18:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment schlechtes Licht alleine wäre noch okay, aber wenn bei der Bearbeitung einige Details pixelig werden, oder die Ränder ausgefranst wirken, kann ein Bild m.E. nicht mehr zum QI werden. Die blauen Schilder, das Dachgeländer und die Antennen sind neben der mißglückten Straßenlaterne meine Hauptkritikpunkte. Gruß --Rolf H. 03:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for me --Christian Ferrer 16:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment   Done?, better @Christian and @Rolf H.? --Tuxyso 20:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
      •   Support okay, this version is much better. --Rolf H. 06:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 09:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)