Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 25 2014

Consensual review edit

File:St Paul's Church Port Townsend.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Church in Port Townsend --Adbar 06:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 09:50,18 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   Neutral perspective distortion on the left;   chromatic aberration on the cross and some edges; probably a bit overexposed highlights. --A.Savin 13:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment I tried to correct part of it, is it better? --Adbar 21:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes. But the slight overexposure still doesn't let me support. --A.Savin 19:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 04:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Trompe l oeil Emperor's Courtyard Residenz Munich.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Trompe l'oeil painting, Emperor's Courtyard, Residenz, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.--Jebulon 15:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  Support Good quality. --JLPC 16:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  Oppose sorry, but the sharpness is clearly below today's QI standards. --A.Savin 21:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  Support QI for me. Jbribeiro1 02:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  Support quality image -- Sanyambahga 17:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  Support QI to me. --Cayambe 17:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI. --P e z i 21:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 04:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Teotihuacán,_México,_2013-10-13,_DD_05.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Teotihuacán, Mexico --Poco a poco 03:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose imo, this one is not sharp enough. Plus distorted and blurred edges. --A.Savin 08:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    I have done some improvements (crop, perspective, curves) and I am not sure whether this one is worse than all others, I hope you don't mind if you discuss it. --Poco a poco 17:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support OK, this version I'll accept. --A.Savin 11:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 04:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

File:East Midlands Parkway railway station MMB 18.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination East Midlands Parkway railway station. Mattbuck 07:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline To dark, white balance not correct, the person is not sharp. --SteveK 07:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    White balance is correct, and I have brightened it. --Mattbuck 21:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark, unsharp. --Nino Verde 11:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The white balance is still not correct. There's a blue tint over the hole picture (see the snow in the background and the white bird on the right poster). There is a CA at the "Welcome". The image is slightly out of focus, and the person has motion blur. --SteveK 17:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Cccefalon 04:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Wayside_shrine_Col_dala_Pelda_fresco_with_Madonna.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Wayside shrine near the manor house Col dala Pelda in Sëlva Gherdëina. --Moroder 17:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Overexposed bottom left. --Mattbuck 22:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. No way, Mattbuck. Give a look at the histogram of supposed OE area here! --Moroder 09:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me no overexposition. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI --Jebulon 23:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 04:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Пмз-интерьер-02-никольская-2-этаж-0104.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Interior of Nature department in Pereslavl museum. --PereslavlFoto 17:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Left side leaning. Too much magenta. Too much reflections in the glas boxes. Not a QI IMO --Cccefalon 09:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    The reflections are essential for the museum. Maybe someone else comments to find the way with this subject? --PereslavlFoto 21:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Referring to the questions you left on my talk page: I made some annotations where I found indications of too much magenta in the photo. Probably the WB was not properly done. Of course, the reflections in the glas boxes are hard to avoid. But definetly they are disturbing. Sometimes the circumstances are against an assessment as QI and for me, this is such a situation. I do not contest, that this photo is of encyclopedial value, but it is not a QI for me. --Cccefalon 06:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm afraid Cccefalon is right. But I think it is correctible.--Jebulon 14:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Cccefalon 04:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Rösrath_Germany_St-Nikolaus-von-Tolentino-11.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination St. Antonius at the High Altar of St. Nikolaus von Tolentino in Rösrath, germany --Cccefalon 15:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support The upper composition is a bit unsharp, but still a good photo --A.Savin 17:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose for the moment. The vertical stretching is a bit too much for me. All the statues look distorded with unnatural proportions. Correctible IMO.--Jebulon 19:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
      Comment Why "for the moment"? I can either choose to get verticals rectilinear or upper part unstretched; that's how untilting operation work. So, what death do you want me to die? :-) --Cccefalon 05:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment I said "for the moment" because it was correctible... I've tried something as vertical scale correction, I think it is better. Please revert if you don't agree. And for sure, I don't want you to die. For the moment. --Jebulon 13:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Amazing ... thank you .. want to apply it to the .DNG/.TIF file? there are some losses in the fine details. --Cccefalon 16:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)~
  •   Support Good now. "for the moment" may be a Gallicism   --Archaeodontosaurus 09:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Better said: "for the time being", or "right now". Thank you Archaeo. And I don't want nobody to die. Still. For the time being.   I'm at work with the file received--Jebulon 14:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 04:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Grosskirmes Ibbenbueren Achterbahn 01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Roller coaster „Berg und Tal“ at the funfair Großkirmes Ibbenbüren in Ibbenbüren, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --J.-H. Janßen 19:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Support Good quality. --Wikijunkie 09:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    I like it, but left side is leaning in and it could all do with sharpening.  Oppose --Mattbuck 22:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose As per Matt. Fixable, but 3 three weeks after nomination, a reaction of the nominator could be expected. --Cccefalon 05:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Cccefalon 04:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Luebben Paul Gerhardt Gymnasium 10.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Paul-Gerhardt-Gymnasium in Lübben, Brandenburg, Germany --J.-H. Janßen 16:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Support Good quality. --Wikijunkie 09:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment perspective correction needed. --P e z i 22:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not acceptable for me as QI without perspective correction. --Uoaei1 06:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per other --Archaeodontosaurus 15:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support A sharpening white line is visible along the roofs, but I think it is acceptable after the perspective correction, which has been done.--Jebulon 14:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The perspective is still not properly done. The building is leaning inwards. --Cccefalon 05:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)~
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Cccefalon 04:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)