Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 12 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Jiuzhaigou_Sichuan_China_Jiuzhaigou-Tibetan-Mystery-Theater-03.jpg edit

 

File:Scharnstein_Viechtwang_Pfarrkirche_Chor_Fresken.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The Frescos in the ceiling of the parish church of Viechtwang --Isiwal 19:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Hubertl 21:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The top shows detail loss to (near) overexposure. Please either darken the highlights or use a tighter crop. --Mattbuck 00:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    •   Done Reduced exposure in the upper area. The whites in the original Raw have had 89% (is that near overexposure already?), now they have somewhat under 80% --Isiwal 20:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
      It was difficult to discern detail. his is much better.   Support Mattbuck 22:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
      No problem, thanks for review. --Isiwal 23:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Nationaal Park Weerribben. Bevroren rietveld 01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination National Park Weerribben. Frozen reed.
    Famberhorst 16:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Rather soft I think. --Mattbuck 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support. I don't think so. For me it is QI. -- Spurzem 11:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 07:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted Code 05:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)