Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 02 2013

Consensual review edit

File:Mainau_-_Insel_-_Bänke_&_Rast_001.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The Island of Mainau. A multicoloured furniture. --Mummelgrummel 06:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose I don't like the composition (It does not seem anticipated). Vertical lines of the right aren't strights. Strong strong halos (see notes)--Lmbuga 19:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      DoneUpload of a new version with less contrast and - so I hope - less haloes. Do you mean the reflections with strong haloes? If it isn't good enough, it ist o.K. Thank you for commenting and the notes --Mummelgrummel 05:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
      Comment Much better, but, sorry, I don't like the composition: to me it may be a random image--Lmbuga 20:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 15:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Mt_Ventoux_-_papillon_2.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Flowers and butterfly in Mont Ventoux --Marianne Casamance 16:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Sorry, undetermined species, blurry and poor detail, too little subjects IMO--Lmbuga 18:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    identification made, but it has nothing to do with image quality --Marianne Casamance 20:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Marianne, the guidelines say, "Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms." – though it’s a "should"-statement, this is considered necessary for the usefulness of an image. --Kreuzschnabel 21:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
OK Marianne Casamance 20:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 15:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Torzhok (Tver oblast). Tvertsa river embankment.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Torzhok. River Tvertsa embankment --Александров 23:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline *  Support Good quality. --Indeedous 23:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too soft, perspective distortions, overexposed facades, pixelated sky. --A.Savin 13:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Facades too bright, left and right edge of image unsharp. --Dirtsc 09:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Very unsharp towards the right edge, considerable noise in water and sky, facades on the right seem overexposed. Pity, as it’s a fine composition. --Kreuzschnabel 21:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 15:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Heimerdingen Katholische Kirche (1).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Small Catholic Church in Heimerdingen, Germany --Harke 16:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. -- Felix Koenig 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    {{o}} A bit tilted and it needs a bit of perspective correction (see note please). Improvable.--Lmbuga 00:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Done I've uploaded a new version. In my opinion is better. If you want you can revert it. Now it's good for me, but I don't know if I can vote--Lmbuga 10:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks very good, thank you --Harke 18:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support OK to me. --Dirtsc 15:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Not first class sharpness but OK. --Kreuzschnabel 12:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 15:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Katy Perry gig Nottingham 2011 MMB 51.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Katy Perry performing in Nottingham. Mattbuck 09:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Indeedous 23:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose blurry --A.Savin 13:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Sharpened and cropped off the white edge. Mattbuck 14:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Looks better, but due to sharpening some noise on her skin is visible. However, no longer opposing. --A.Savin 09:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 15:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Faurea rochetiana MHNT.BOT.2009.13.24.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination fruits and seeds of - Fruits et graines de --Ercé 06:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose It seem overexposed --Christian Ferrer 13:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. Mattbuck 23:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support OK to me, overexposure on the background isn't critical imo --A.Savin 13:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 15:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:La Couvertoirade-Moulin de Redounel VSO-20130616.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Panoramic of the windmil of the Redounel, La Couvertoirade, France -- Daniel Villafruela 06:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Ajepbah 11:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - several dust spots. Mattbuck 23:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per mattbuck + CA on leaves. --A.Savin 12:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 15:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Valais_Cup_2013_-_OM-FC_Porto_13-07-2013_-_Jordan_Ayew,_Steven_Defour,_Dimitri_Payet_et_Diego_Reyes.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Valais Cup 2013 - OM-FC Porto - 20130713 - Jordan Ayew, Steven Defour, Dimitri Payet et Diego Reyes --Pleclown 11:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose this one is too soft - even for sports photography it's not enough for QI, imo --A.Savin 16:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
      SupportI Know, there are many experts of sportsphotography, but they make no sportphotos. Let us discuss, QI for me. --Steindy 17:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO QI. -- Smial 14:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor quality: jpg artifacts, poor detail, strong chromatic noise at faces... Sorry, not QI for me, but I don't have problem if it's QI for you--Lmbuga 23:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lmbuga. Mattbuck 18:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 15:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:De Alde Feanen.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination The Alde Feanen.
    Water management.--
    Famberhorst 18:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • I'm rather unsure what the subject is meant to be. --Mattbuck 10:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    •   Comment It is a slider to let. water in different positions in the area.--
      Famberhorst 15:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The quality seems good, though the subject and the composition looks a little bit boring to me. --Dirtsc 17:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too soft and oversharpened, perspective distortions. --A.Savin 12:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image looks like a random shot, not a QI for me. In case it can be re-taken, here are some suggestions:
    • Choose a lower camera position to get the horizon into the frame and emphasize the size of the slider/lever/whateveritis (choose position as to rise its top over the horizon)
    • Either keep the camera in a level position or correct perspective distortion afterwards
    • Be sure not to cut anything eye-catching (as the blade of grass, which might rather be cut off not to distract from the construction)
    • I suggest to choose a bigger aperture for a more unsharp background to draw attention to the main object (which should be crisp sharp of course)
    • and last, the all-times-general hint for better images: Use a tripod to do the "hold the camera" job so you can concentrate on the "compose the image" job!
  • --Kreuzschnabel 22:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
      Comment Hartelijk dank voor uw tips.--
    Famberhorst (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 15:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)