Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 30 2015

Consensual review edit

File:2013-11-01_Triton_und_Nymphe-Volksgarten_Viktor_Tilgner_6018.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Triton und Nymphe fountain by Viktor Tilgner at Volksgarten --Hubertl 22:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Steindy 23:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    Reddish WB. --Smial 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for review   Done--Hubertl 10:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 10:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Better. -- Smial 12:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support As above. --Steindy 22:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 16:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2013-11-01_Triton_und_Nymphe-Volksgarten_Viktor_Tilgner_6040.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Triton und Nymphe fountain by Viktor Tilgner at Volksgarten --Hubertl 22:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Steindy 23:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    Blueish WB. --Smial 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for review   Done--Hubertl 10:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Better. -- Smial 12:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support As above. --Steindy 22:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 16:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Wraxall 2013 MMB 77 Bonfire.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bonfire in Wraxall. Mattbuck 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support --Christian Ferrer 15:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The photo is only suitable for artistic purposes, since the exposure time was too long and therefore the flames are out of focus. --Steindy 23:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    Nothing wrong with arty photos at QI. Mattbuck 23:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good shot with nice colors und nice composition. Steindy: The unsharpness of the flames results from motion, not from wrong focus. I hope, you know what 'focus' means? Your behaviour and arguments become more and more absurd. -- Smial 00:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support As the wood is sharp it is QI to me, IMO an usefule image --DKrieger 22:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 16:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Banteay_Kdei,_Angkor,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_16.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Banteay Kdei, Angkor, Cambodia --Poco a poco 17:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
      Comment Good composition und very good handling of high contrast lighting, but disturbing unsharpness in left and top left area. Did you apply perspective correction? Then I'd suggest some downscaling to supress blurring by this process. -- Smial 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
      New try without downsampling, though (rather new crop and aspect ratio) Poco a poco 15:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Smial's issue is still present. --Mattbuck 22:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
      Cropped Poco a poco 19:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Please keep a separate 2015-01-17 version with the interesting figures on the left. –Be..anyone 02:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    I think that this version deserves QI. Be..anyone: I've created a new version: File:Banteay_Kdei,_Angkor,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_16_uncropped.JPG --Poco a poco 19:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support the last one is ok for me --Christian Ferrer 12:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Problem is still visible, but no more strong disturbing. As for Christian ok for me. -- Smial 11:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 16:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-090.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Hongkong, view from Kowloon to Hongkong Island --Ralf Roletschek 13:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Interesting view, QI for me. --Dnalor 01 14:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
      Comment As the discussion about QI-promotion of the other Hongkong image Nr. 088 shows probably it's better to discuss the issue in the forum of the community. I don't want to decide alone. --Dnalor 01 08:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
      Support by me, the perspective is corrected, as far it was possible with 11mm focal lenght. But 4th opinion furthermore appreciated! --Hubertl 00:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. Now it's okay! --Dnalor 01 12:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good shot --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Pretty! --Steindy 22:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 16:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Die Riegersburg von Süden 1.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Riegersburg fortress as seen from the south, Riegersburg, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 07:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Bgag 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The trees show a fair amount of JPEG artifaction IMO. --Mattbuck 01:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support For me its ok and sufficient for QI --Hubertl 19:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor image quality. Artifacts all over the building, the rocks and the trees, blueish shadows, oversharpened. Maybe unfortunate camera settings. Looks as if been taken with a phone cam to me. --Kreuzschnabel 20:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)  Weak supportReset version acceptable IMHO, at least compared to the overprocessed one. --Kreuzschnabel 12:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I made a reset to the first uploaded version, please review again. --Dnalor 01 08:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition, I like--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 18:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Die Riegersburg von Süden 2.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Riegersburg fortress as seen from the south, Riegersburg, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 07:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose a bit too blurred IMO --Christian Ferrer 08:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice scene, but very poor image quality. JPEG and NR artifacts all over the frame, oversharpened (see white seam around the rock at the left), poor detail for an image of less than 10 mpix. Not a QI at all, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 20:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I made a reset to the first uploaded version, please review again. --Dnalor 01 08:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    •   Comment Overall better but still not sharp enough for its size, sorry --Kreuzschnabel 12:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Kreuzschnabel. --Bgag 20:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --C messier 16:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Lüdinghauser_Tor_--_2014_--_2881.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lüdinghauser Tor, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Fine picture but the right tower is leaning out. Fixable IMO. --Dnalor 01 08:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support, spent days for this POV? –Be..anyone 15:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I had to send it too discuss, unless Dnalors suggestion is answered. Anyhow, spent days for this POV is not a valid appraisal --Hubertl 23:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Long form: Nobody else in the category tried this point of view, and the one who did it apparently worked on it for three days. –Be..anyone 06:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Some images show that the old building building itself is leaning out.--XRay 04:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice light, acceptable quality though not perfect. I think the perspective is a bit over-corrected. --Kreuzschnabel 20:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support It's not my point of view, but technical okay. --Steindy 22:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice picture--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 17:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Suchum,_Ogród_botaniczny_(27).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bamboo (Bambuseae) walkway. Botanical garden. Sukhumi, Abkhazia. --Halavar 17:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment IMO very bright and tilted CCW.--XRay 18:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
      Done New, fixed version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 20:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposure remapped to grey. Mattbuck 22:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
      Comment I do not agree. We need other opinions. --Halavar 00:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose overexposed and not really sharp --Christian Ferrer 08:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed. --Steindy 22:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --C messier 17:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:2013-08-17_Lago_di_Fusine_superiore_-hu-_B_4599.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The dryed alp in Summer at the upper Fusine lake, Fusine di Valromana, View to the north. --Hubertl 20:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline   OpposeUnsharp --Livioandronico2013 21:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
      Comment I cannot detect unsharpness. --Dnalor 01 16:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, it could be a little sharper. But that is no reason for a counterpoint, as all the details are clearly visible. Anyway, enough for QI! --Steindy 18:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Steindy! QI for me. --Dnalor 01 06:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - That is not in any way sharp enough for QI. That wouldn't have passed the first round of photo culling for me. Mattbuck 23:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose a bit too unsharp --Christian Ferrer 08:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice lighting and compostion, center sharpness not overwhelming, but acceptable. But rather unsharp at the corners and left and right margins. The small part of the building's roof at the left side should be cropped. -- Smial 14:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --C messier 17:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) in flight in Venice at sunrise.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) in flight in Venice at sunrise, 2003-08-17. --Dnalor 01 10:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Arty, but not QI --Pleclown 11:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree, the composition and the light situation makes it QI for me. --Hubertl 12:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Hubertl: , your {{S}}, svp –Be..anyone 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  Comment It's not a QI for you, Pleclown, but without a statement of reason(s)? That's curious. --Dnalor 01 15:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced it's QI either, though hard to work out quite why. Mattbuck 23:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support For this, it's a shot in full backlight, it is well done. --Steindy 23:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 17:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Eastern terminus of Pennsylvania Route 254.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination: Pennsylvania Route 254. Jakec 13:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Review   Support Good quality. Under the premise that the road is really leaning to the left. --Code 14:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While the road may be banked, it is unlikely the poles are consistently leaning to the left (as pictured).--Wsiegmund 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Wsiegmund: Fixed now. Jakec 02:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • While it is better now, I still see four utility poles and two road sign supports that all lean to the left. What am I missing? --Wsiegmund 20:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  OpposePer Wsiegmund --Livioandronico2013 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  •   Support - seems ok to me. Mattbuck 23:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --C messier 15:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Brisbane_ANZAC_Day_Parade_2012_(IMG06363).jpg edit

File:Brisbane ANZAC Day Parade 2012 (IMG06363).jpg

  • Nomination Women from Australian Vietnamese community. ANZAC Day Parade, Brisbane, Australia --Bald white guy 10:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality.--ArildV 22:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This image was clearly downsampled. Ram-Man 18:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Question What about the license? It’s CC-BY-SA 4.0 but then the uploader restricted to non-commercial use. This does not comply with Commons licensing guidelines IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality, but bad license. --Steindy 01:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment, nothing in these images was changed for months; the templates are also stable, I see no NC. Was that some glitch, do you still see NC? –Be..anyone 17:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    •   Comment @Bald white guy and Be..anyone: CC BY-SA 4.0 is fine, but above is written Licensing for this image is NON-COMMERCIAL. I didn't see it when I reviewed the image.--ArildV (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Face-palm, the permissions, sorry. That's a mass DR, unless the author changes it. –Be..anyone 17:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  Comment Such „licenses“ are remarkable (sometimes) used to admonish the user with the lawyer, if they do not do so accurately. We do not need such licenses here. I would prefer to delete such images. --Steindy 18:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --C messier 16:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:AndrewMercerIMG 9825 Scaly Breasted Lorikeet.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Scaly-breasted lorikeet --Bald_white_guy 10:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Review QI for me--Holleday 19:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
      Oppose This image was clearly downsampled. See the rules. Ram-Man 18:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support The rules require 2 MP and the picture therefore complies with the rules. Good quality. --Steindy 01:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    •   Comment Our rules also say, For “easy to take” images, reviewers may choose to demand more if the image would benefit from it. So, the 2 mpix lower limit does not say that, for any image barely exceeding that limit, size is no more a factor at all. This one is definitely easy to take; if this image needed downsampling to achieve appropriate sharpness, this is a point against QI. --Kreuzschnabel 20:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Overexposure on red channel. Mattbuck 22:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --C messier 17:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)