Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 24 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Disque Chichen Itza Mayas.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The turquoise disk of Chichén Itza, Maya civilization, Mexico.--Jebulon 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •   Comment Vigneting, hard shadow, unbalanced: too tight at right and too much space at left. Cyan CAs (see note)--Lmbuga 18:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment OK for CA, I'll correct. The rest just real in the museum, due to the light. "Vignetting" is a lens issue, this is not the case, the lighting was so in the museum. You may dislike the composition I have chosen, it is your right, but you have the duty to oppose, dear Lmbuga.--Jebulon 20:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Comment It's a interesting picture and good, but I'm not sure if it's QI. The vignetting is always or almost always due to the lenses, but vigneting is considered in the guidelines. The vignetting could be unimportant or artistic if the subject were not on the right side of the photo: unbalanced. Sorry for not decide my vote. Listen to others--Lmbuga 20:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment There is no vignetting. Vignetting is a flaw. The disk was lightened so in the museum. I just took the picture as it was. The composition is due to my will to show the whole shadow. I can of course make otherwise, more "usual"...--Jebulon 22:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose CA and not sharp --Denkmalhelfer 18:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose This is an interesting image, but the shadows are very disturbing.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I withdraw my nomination but will rework and be back.--Jebulon 21:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:San_Pancrazio_(Isola_Farnese_-_Roma).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination San Pancrazio (Isola Farnese - Roma) --Livioandronico2013 10:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Hubertl 11:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   SupportI disagree Dust spot --Moroder 12:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support for me. Where is a dust spot? I see a plane in the sky. -- Spurzem 12:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed there is a big dustspot, I added a note --Christian Ferrer 14:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 06:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

File:San_Pancrazio_(Isola_Farnese_-_Rome).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination San Pancrazio (Isola Farnese - Rome) --Livioandronico2013 10:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice Dust spot--Moroder 12:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Where? For me it's QI -- Spurzem 12:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment ?? big dustspot indeed. @Spurzem: is it possible to expect an attempt to correct before a promotion? --Christian Ferrer 14:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree. DS must be fixed --Moroder 16:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Ops     DoneMoroder and Christian Ferrer ,Sorry but i don't seen --Livioandronico2013 19:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support As above. -- Spurzem 08:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support looks fine. --Denkmalhelfer 12:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 06:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Cornus_mas_in_Blüte_Hegerberg_03.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Flowering Cornus mas on Hegerberg mountain near Kasten, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 18:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Hubertl 19:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am very sorry that I have to disagree in this case but most of the tree is completely blurred. I don't know how this could happen at 1/250 but I don't think that this is fixable. --Code 16:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as for Code. Sorry, nice lighting, colors and composition. --Smial 11:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 13:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

File:FordFiesta-Tandil-abr2015.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Ford Fiesta parked in Tandil, Argentina --Ezarate 21:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)</>   Comment Perhaps it will be better if you crop the upper part,.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)   Done --Ezarate 22:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    Further the front of the car is too dark. -- Spurzem 16:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
      Done
  • Decline It"s better good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    It's a bit better now but no QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 12:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  Support looks fine. --Denkmalhelfer 12:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)--Denkmalhelfer 12:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  •   Oppose There is not enough contrast between bumper and background. Further the rear light is to bright and sharpness could be better. And the composition is not fine for me. But this may be a question of taste. -- Spurzem 16:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy, bad lighting and too unsharp regarding the rather low resolution. --Smial 11:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Smial 11:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others--Lmbuga 17:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 13:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Friedhofskirche_St._Maria-4.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Pilastergegliederter Saalbau mit flacher Stichkappentonne und eingezogenem Chor, Dachreiter mit Spitzhelm, vermutlich von Michael Stiller, 1722 --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 07:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Subject unsharp. Third opinion appreciated --Hubertl 11:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment A third opinion means "discuss". Or am I wrong? --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 21:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment The subject is really not sharp. --ArishG 13:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not sharp, bad CA --Denkmalhelfer (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 13:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

File:BustoaBelgranoTandil-abr2015.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Busto a Manuel Belgrano en Tandil, Argentina --Ezarate 16:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)*   Comment needs some perspective corrections. The technical quality is sufficient for QI. IMO --Hubertl 17:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)   Done --Ezarate 20:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC) @Hubertl: And? --Ezarate 00:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC) 09:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)*  Comment Now is more distorted. --C messier 10:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Another version uploaded --Ezarate 00:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    It's overexposed now. --C messier 21:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC) fixed --Ezarate 00:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    Now it's leaning again. --C messier 17:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC) now? --Ezarate 18:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Nope. You need to correct the perspective, not just rotate it. Mattbuck 08:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC) redone --Ezarate 13:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Acceptable now. --Hubertl 08:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    None of the verticals are vertical in the latest version. --Mattbuck 21:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support looks fine --Denkmalhelfer (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry guys but "fine" is not good enough for QI. In this case, the contrast is too hard and the image quality of the subject (the face) is below par. Alvesgaspar 13:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Need perspective correction --Billy69150 16:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Contrast is too hard. It needs perspective correction. Yellowish IMO. Unbalanced--Lmbuga 17:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 13:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Wolfstein 01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Ruine of "Burg Wolfstein" in Bavaria, part of a former house --Derzno 14:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Nice, but the crop is tight above.--Jebulon 17:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
      Done New version uploaded, aggressive crop slightly extended but unfortunately the original data doesn’t contain much more on the top of the picture. --~~~~
  •   Support looks fine --Denkmalhelfer (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 13:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)