Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 27 2014

Consensual review edit

File:EE 03-14 Img06 Bad Liebenwerda Burgplatz.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Courthouse (former prison) in Bad Liebenwerda, Brandenburg, Germany --A.Savin 17:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 17:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it needs less space below, and more above (tight crop). Improvable IMO.--Jebulon 20:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jebulon: done. --A.Savin 21:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Florstein 08:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better IMO, thanks.--Jebulon 20:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 04:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.03.09.-15-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Braune Krabbenspinne-Weibchen.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Braune Krabbenspinne - Xysticus cristatus, Weibchen (female) --Hockei 17:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Overprocessed. Please zoom in to confirm. --Arctic Kangaroo 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think so. More opinions? --Hockei 18:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  Info I uploaded a new version with some changes. Please take a look but I still don't agree with Arctic Kangaroo. --Hockei 09:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days Blurred Lines 18:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.03.09.-14-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Braune Krabbenspinne-Weibchen.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Braune Krabbenspinne - Xysticus cristatus, Weibchen (female) --Hockei 17:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Overprocessed. Please zoom in to confirm. --Arctic Kangaroo 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think so. More opinions? --Hockei 18:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  Info I uploaded a new version with some changes. Please take a look but I still don't agree with Arctic Kangaroo. --Hockei 09:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days Blurred Lines 18:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Manchester Piccadilly station MMB 14 390046 185120.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Manchester Piccadilly station. Mattbuck 07:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Review trains are drowning in the dark, over all bad dynamic --Taxiarchos228 07:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    Brightened. --Mattbuck 22:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes? Blurred Lines 18:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB L1 More London.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: More London. Mattbuck 13:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Review one more random shot of London, totally underexposed --Taxiarchos228 07:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    Brightened. Mattbuck 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days Blurred Lines 18:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Hauinger_Buurefastnacht_2014_38.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Carnival in Hauingen (Lörrach), Germany --Taxiarchos228 05:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Bad crop at the bottom IMO. --Mattbuck 21:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    not IMO --Taxiarchos228 07:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days Blurred Lines 18:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Hauinger_Buurefastnacht_2014_24.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Carnival in Hauingen (Lörrach), Germany --Taxiarchos228 05:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Not sharp. --Mattbuck 21:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC
    this picture is sharp, stop your personal campaign against my pictures --Taxiarchos228 07:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC))
I have better things to do than go through QI finding spurious reasons to decline your images. I apply the same standards to all photos I review. Mattbuck 21:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days Blurred Lines 18:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Lagarto_(Sceloporus_mucronatus),_Zona_arqueológica_de_Cantona,_Puebla,_México,_2013-10-11,_DD_02.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Lizzard (Sceloporus mucronatus), archeological area of Cantona, Puebla, Mexico --Poco a poco 08:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Insufficient quality. And just an additional note, you should have shot it from the front, not from the back. --Arctic Kangaroo 02:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss it, to me it is a clear QI --Poco a poco 19:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    • @Poco a poco: Probably some clarification needed from me. 1. The lizard looks a bit blur. 2. The lighting seems a little harsh on the lizard, looking at the way it is reflected? This is the main part requiring clarification. --Arctic Kangaroo 08:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I think that you should use a different bar for FPCs and QICs. Blur would be a QI topic, but I cannot see any apart from DoF around the tail Poco a poco 19:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Clear QI, main subject is ok and the back have also an EV --Christian Ferrer 17:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Arctic Kangaroo 08:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe 09:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted Blurred Lines 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.03.09.-08-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-C-Falter-Nominatform.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination C-Falter - Nymphalis c-album (Nominatform f. c-album) --Hockei 19:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Insufficient quality. Blur, bad lighting, not parallel (bad angle/perspective). --Arctic Kangaroo 16:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    I have a feeling that your world is everywhere parallel. Not so here. More opinions? --Hockei 17:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose due to low colour depth, but I am very confused as to what exactly AK expects to be parallel... Mattbuck 23:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Low color depth is not understandable for me. I see no difference to other photos of this butterfly.
  • Probably he mean this (#3). Not applicable/practical for every shot; but a good practice if possible. Jkadavoor 17:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I remember his delisting-action here. --Hockei 17:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Info I uploaded a new version with some changes for more opinions. --Hockei 10:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined Blurred Lines 18:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.03.09.-07-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-C-Falter-Nominatform.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination C-Falter - Nymphalis c-album (Nominatform f. c-album) --Hockei 19:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Insufficient quality. Blur, bad lighting, not parallel (bad angle/perspective). --Arctic Kangaroo 16:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    More opinions? --Hockei 17:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose due to low colour depth, but I am very confused as to what exactly AK expects to be parallel... Mattbuck 23:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Low color depth is not understandable for me. I see no difference to other photos of this butterfly. --Hockei 15:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Info I uploaded a new version with some changes for more opinions. --Hockei 11:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined Blurred Lines 18:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Hauinger_Buurefastnacht_2014_22.jpg edit

  • Nomination Carnival in Hauingen (Lörrach), Germany --Taxiarchos228 16:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose unsharp, very noise --Ezarate 20:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    the main object isn't unsharp --Taxiarchos228 06:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco a poco 19:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Photographer 02:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted Blurred Lines 17:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.03.09.-05-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Gemeine Winterlibelle-Maennchen.jpeg edit

 

  • Nomination Gemeine Winterlibelle - Sympecma fusca, Männchen (male) --Hockei 23:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support Good quality. --XRay 07:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose Oversharpened. The degree of it only goes to show that the photo is of low quality. --Arctic Kangaroo 16:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco a poco 19:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe 09:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted Blurred Lines 17:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.03.09.-04-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Gemeine Winterlibelle-Weibchen.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Gemeine Winterlibelle - Sympecma fusca, Weibchen (female) --Hockei 22:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Review   Oppose Oversharpened. The degree of it only goes to show that the photo is of low quality. --Arctic Kangaroo 16:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    I wish to discuss --Hockei 17:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco a poco 19:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days Blurred Lines 17:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.03.08.-1-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Gemeine Winterlibelle-Weibchen.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Gemeine Winterlibelle - Sympecma fusca, Weibchen (female) --Hockei 20:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Quality is good, but those branches are really disturbing, specially the one before the dragonfly --Poco a poco 11:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
      Comment It is a discovery moment and so I don't understand that the branches should be disturbing for QI. It is not a FP nomination. --Hockei 19:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    Never mind the branches; this is QI. But, your picture is oversharpened. The degree of it only goes to show that the photo is of low quality.   Oppose --Arctic Kangaroo 15:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined Blurred Lines 17:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Butterfly Eastern Festoon - Allancastria cerisyi.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A mating couple of Eastern Festoon (Allancastria cerisyi) on flowers of Common Asphodel (Asphodelus aestivus).--Zeynel Cebeci 20:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose I can understand the difficulty of shooting hairy butterflies, but blur heads never look good. Sorry. --Arctic Kangaroo 18:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
      Support I disagree, sharpness is ok for me. --Uoaei1 19:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
      Support Good quality IMO--Lmbuga 20:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
      Support Ok for me.Pleclown 12:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
      Support Jkadavoor 17:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco a poco 19:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted Blurred Lines 17:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Alhambra_Löwenhof_mit_Löwenbrunnen_2014.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Court of the Lions of Alhambra --Tuxyso 17:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
    New version uploaded (more natural look). --Tuxyso 08:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Granada is one of my favorite places in the world. But this still looks unnatural I'm afraid (especially the halos of tourists).--Jebulon 15:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    I look forward to your photo from the Alhambra. IMHO more than OK, let's discuss. --Tuxyso 18:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
      Support Better now. Could be interesting a version without peoples and chains --The Photographer 02:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks The Photographer for your review. Unfortunately I have no photo from this perspective completely without people. The Nasrid Palaces are very overcrowded and it is nearly impossible to get rid of the people. --Tuxyso 12:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, everything can be fixed. You could take severals pictures and remove the people with photo combination --The Photographer 01:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted Blurred Lines 17:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Paddington station MMB 80 332003.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: 332003 at Paddington. Mattbuck 11:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Review   Oppose The motif is good, but not the quality: The focal position is extremly shallow (at the first Mind the Gap sign) and there is nothing in the focus position which is catching the attention of the observer. --Cccefalon 07:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    Request second opinion. --Mattbuck 02:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Tuxyso 10:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blur. --Arctic Kangaroo 18:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    It's meant to have motion blur, it's a long exposure photo. Mattbuck 19:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for me. Pleclown 12:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support For me too. Christian Ferrer 17:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose due to lack of sharpness Poco a poco 19:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days Blurred Lines 17:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:西湖平湖秋月.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Autumn Moon Over the Calm Lake. Xihu, one of the ten famous scenes, calm lake and autumn moon. West Lake in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. By User:Jeff chenqinyi --Achim Raschka 15:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Nice images but the strong CA on the right side is disturbing.--ArildV 15:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
      Support the CA is obvious but it is all in all a very good image. --High Contrast 22:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We can not accept in QI, CA so flagrant. Especially if the image is good, it can be corrected. --Archaeodontosaurus 10:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Surprising strong   chromatic aberrations. Surprising thinking it's proposed here. --Lmbuga 01:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

*  Support Very good photo with only minor disadvantages --188.104.117.202 09:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC) IP-Users are not eligible to vote. --Cccefalon 19:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  •   Oppose I also think that this is a very nice image, but the CAs are a remarkable quality concern. Achim, have you tried some kind of CA removal? --Tuxyso 10:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • @Tuxyso: I never work on pics that are not done by myself. This picture was one of the winners of WLM 2013 wordwide, so that was the reason to nominate it here. -- Achim Raschka 11:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, Achim, I had overseen that the photo was not done by you. Nonetheless I would remove the CAs. --Tuxyso 11:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello Achim, it might be an often reiterated misunderstanding, but being a winner in WLM does not qualify a photo automatically to comply with the requirements of QI. Before nominating a photo of someone else, it should be crosschecked against COM:QIC and the Image guidelines. As per the other opposers, I think that this CA can easily be removed but without removal, I also   Oppose. --Cccefalon 19:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poco a poco 19:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a beautiful pictures, the colours are charming, but it's not a QI. --PierreSelim 09:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose →   Declined   --PierreSelim 10:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB «R6 River Thames and Canary Wharf.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination River Thames and Canary Wharf. Mattbuck 08:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose noise and bit too soft --A.Savin 12:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. Mattbuck 00:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    @A.Savin: Mattbuck has fixed the issue. Please reconsider your vote. --Arctic Kangaroo 08:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not good detail (see buildings) and as Savin--Lmbuga 01:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    I honestly have no idea what photo you're looking at, but it's not this one. There is minimal noise and the photo is sharp! Poor detail? What the hell are you talking about! Mattbuck 02:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    @Lmbuga: I too have no idea what you are talking about, but Mattbuck has sharpened the photo after this. Please reconsider your vote. --Arctic Kangaroo 08:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 07:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support OK. --Tuxyso 10:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Photo is very soft, especially the part where I added a note. --Arctic Kangaroo 18:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    OK, sharpened, especially in that area. Mattbuck 19:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
      Support Issue fixed. --Arctic Kangaroo 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco a poco 19:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • After the edit,   Neutral - sharpening may not solve all problems --A.Savin 14:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 14:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Hauinger_Buurefastnacht_2014_14.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Carnival in Hauingen (Lörrach), Germany --Taxiarchos228 05:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Review   Oppose it's quite noisy to me --A.Savin 12:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
    it's not more or less noisy then the other pictures of this series I have made with ISO 400, IMO not disturbing --Taxiarchos228 19:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It needs perspective correction. As Savin--Lmbuga 02:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco a poco 19:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 13:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'd suggest a generous crop on the left to put more emphasis on the nice subject (selfie?). The background is already very confusing? --Moroder 18:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days Blurred Lines 17:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB »081 Citigroup Centre.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Citigroup Centre in fog. Mattbuck 08:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Too much empty space on the top and left. No parameter indicates quality. A little chromatic noise in the little part of the image, when I can see something. Nothing really focused: Missing parameter to assess the fog. Perspective distortion--Lmbuga 20:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    It is in focus, but there is fog, so therefore it is bound to be a bit blurry. Perspective distortion... I was standing pretty close to the building, to try and correct that would be counterproductive as the point is you're looking up. Mattbuck 00:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    *   Comment Sorry, to me (IMO), your proposal is incredible, sorry. ...And you know about QI and issues of QI, but it's only my opinion--Lmbuga 02:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Español: Si desea que profundice en la opinión, hágamelo saber. En mi opinión con esta propuesta ha caído usted muy bajo. Parece que se puede hacer una foto del cielo, del papel blanco... y ser QI (¿no le da vergüenza?). Lo único que puedo decir es "enhorabuena por su capacidad por conseguir imágenes de calidad propias, atribuibles a usted"--Lmbuga 02:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not what I expect of a quality image Poco a poco 19:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined Blurred Lines 17:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Hotel_Majestic,_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_01.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Fountain at the Hotel Majestic, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam --Poco a poco 19:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)<bvr>Unsure about this one - fish and plants are lovely and sharp, but the bowl and fountain aren't.   Weak oppose. Mattbuck 16:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Why Mattbuck? Why?--Lmbuga 02:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC) (I understood that the above words were his)--Lmbuga 02:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI, QI IMO--Lmbuga 02:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 18:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted Blurred Lines 17:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Trombidium holosericeum Woblitz01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Trombidium holosericeum. --Kulac 09:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Too noisy, sorry --Poco a poco 19:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    * you are right. i uploaded a better version. --Kulac 20:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps not QI, but not bad for me, see the size of the subject here. To me it's a meritorius image, but perhaps not QI--Lmbuga 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, the current version is better, I move to neutral --Poco a poco 22:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
      weak support Meritorius image IMO. I can't take this image with more quality (certainly I can't take this image), but I'm not sure if it's a QI. Other users can opine: "Discuss"--Lmbuga 21:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted Blurred Lines 17:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Steve_Callaghan_&_Seth_MacFarlane_(5980340923).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Steve Callaghan and Seth MacFarlane at the 2011 San Diego Comic-Con International in San Diego, California. By User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) --Blurred Lines 12:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Not done by a Commoners --Ezarate 12:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    @Ezarate: I disagree because this image was captured by Trusted Wikimedian User named Gage. --Blurred Lines 14:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  Oppose Mainly because of composition. Too much space between the two characters, and too tight crop left and right. Also both facial expressions are unfortunate to me. Microphones are disturbing.--Jebulon 15:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined Blurred Lines 17:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Drewniana_architektura_w_Irkucku_02.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination The windows in the wooden house. Irkutsk, Siberia, Russia. --Halavar 12:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose red and green CA everywhere --A.Savin 13:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
      Info New version uploaded. Image needs another look or more opinions. --Halavar 13:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed areas--Lmbuga 02:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined Blurred Lines 17:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Lech_Dl_Dragon_towards_Gröden.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination: Lech dl Dragon in 2005. The lake has desappeared by now --Moroder 18:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    Could you crop some off the bottom? The composition is rather odd currently. Mattbuck 23:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)  Done Thanks --Moroder 01:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Composition is still quite odd, IMO - you can barely see the subject because of those rocks in the front. --Yerpo 12:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree The boulders up front Are an essential part of the very peculiar landscape. Nö reason for cropping them out --Moroder 20:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days Blurred Lines 17:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Castle Combe Circuit MMB H1 Mini 7s and Miglia Championship.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mini racing at Castle Combe. Mattbuck 09:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion tilted--79.237.133.3 11:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think it is. --Mattbuck 21:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  Oppose Too dark (see note) areas: Bad and unnatural light IMO--Lmbuga 03:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)   Oppose Underexposed. --Arctic Kangaroo 19:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  •   Support --Arctic Kangaroo 08:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
      Brightened. Mattbuck 19:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for me. Pleclown 12:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support ...is OK --High Contrast 21:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted Blurred Lines 17:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Torres_del_Paine_desde_Lago_Grey.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Torres del Paine National Park, Chile. By User:Negrorodrigo Rybec 00:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline I like it! --Badener 09:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)  Comment sky is rather noisy. --P e z i 16:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
      Support Indeed, there is some noise, but I accept it because the scenery is great --Uoaei1 11:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Additionally to the noisy sky there are overexposed areas (snow on Mountain) and underexposed black areas. This is a nice scenery but not a QI --P e z i 12:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A lot of noise, no details visible in shadow. No QI for me. --Tuxyso 10:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Pezi, and the photo looks very unnatural. --Arctic Kangaroo 19:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Not so bad. per Uoaei1. --High Contrast 21:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support good for QI. --Ralf Roletschek 22:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days Blurred Lines 17:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Drewniana_architektura_w_Irkucku_16.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination The wooden house. Irkutsk, Russia. --Halavar 09:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    Overexposed. --Mattbuck 23:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor quality and overseposed--Lmbuga 03:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined Blurred Lines 17:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Drewniana_architektura_w_Irkucku_21.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination The wooden house. Irkutsk, Russia. --Halavar 09:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    Overexposed. --Mattbuck 23:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
      Info New, improved version uploaded. Hope it's better now. --Halavar 11:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   OpposePoor quality IMO and overseposed. Blown out. Poor detail--Lmbuga 03:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined Blurred Lines 17:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Drewniana_architektura_w_Irkucku_35.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination The wooden house. Irkutsk, Russia. --Halavar 20:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Question Why the detail of the building showing the photo? Bad description or random picture IMO -Lmbuga 02:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    In my opinion, in this image, horizontal lines must be stright. -Lmbuga 02:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, I think the lines are fine. Not sure it's QI though. Mattbuck 23:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
      Comment Perhaps you're right Mattbuck: Now, I see the image with better details (not perfect detais). But now I see a bit of noise and a bit of chromatic noise in shaded areas. Little areas overexposed. But perhaps QI. Tomorrow I will review it again, sorry--Lmbuga 19:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
      Info New version uploaded with noise reduction --Halavar 22:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • {{s}} Better now--Lmbuga 11:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose I changed my mind. Sorry it's not QI for me: Composition... --Lmbuga 03:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined Blurred Lines 17:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:McLaren_MP4-12C_Spider_-_Mondial_de_l'Automobile_de_Paris_2012_-_014.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Une McLaren MP4-12C Spider présentée lors du Mondial de l'Automobile de Paris 2012. --Thesupermat 14:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Picture doesn't mean much imho --Arctic Kangaroo 17:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    I'm changing to discuss because I think the decline reason given by User:Arctic Kangaroo is not valid under QI rules. --Mattbuck 00:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
      Support OK for me. Pleclown 12:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
      Neutral Just take it as I did not vote. @Mattbuck: Sorry, I did not understand the QI guidelines well enough then, but I believe things have improved with guidance from @Saffron. --Arctic Kangaroo 08:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted Blurred Lines 17:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Junglinster_13_rue_de_la_Gare_2014_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 13, rue de la Gare, Junglinster, Luxembourg. Classified national monument. --VT98Fan 15:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Right side is leaning in. Mattbuck 23:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)   Done Better now? --VT98Fan 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    The lines seem to be going every which way. Mattbuck 23:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  Oppose Too tight crop above IMO.--Jebulon 20:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too strong distortet. --Ralf Roletschek 13:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined Blurred Lines 17:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Lake Windermere MMB 58.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lake Windermere. Mattbuck 10:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality but looks slightly tilted CCW to me. --Kreuzschnabel 17:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
    Unfortunately there's nothing big and vertical enough to really judge. I did my best when I edited this, and looking at it now I am able to alternately convince myself it's tilted anticlockwise and clockwise. Mattbuck 21:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose Would have been a great image, had it not been just slightly tilted. :( --Arctic Kangaroo 17:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    Again, I disagree. Any tilt is so slight that it's next to invisible. I can't make an image correctly tilted if I cannot tell it is tilted to begin with. Mattbuck 23:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support I am with Mattbuck, I see no significant tilt and the horizontals in landscape photography, particularly banks of lakes or rivers, are to be taken with many precautions, in the same way as the horizontal of a house taken in perspective cannot be straight. And here the verticals at full resolution seems straight. Christian Ferrer 08:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose La ligne d'horizon n'est pas horizontale et la balance des couleurs n'est pas extraordinaire (c'est sombre et ça tire sur le bleu gris). - Bzh-99 16:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
    I have made it bluer and slightly brighter, but I cannot make a horizon horizontal when I cannot tell that it is not horizontal and where there are no suitable reference points. There is nothing vertical for me to rotate. You all say it's tilted, fine, you're the ones who can see that it is, perhaps you could do a rotation yourselves, that way it will be correct in your own opinion. I cannot rotate an image to be horizontal when I cannot tell it isn't horizontal to begin with. Mattbuck 02:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    Colors are better, but the brightness no. For the horizon: in fact, I should have been more explicit : the horizon line is curved, because of a distortion. It causes an eye discomfort. I think there is no solution for that. - Bzh-99 21:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing any actual tilt here, perhaps the mere appearance or suggestion of one. I've made sure of this by putting the horizon line where water meets land directly underneath the header of my browser window, and it's completely parallel. Can anyone clarify? TeleComNasSprVen 06:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    Bzh, I brightened it slightly, but I thought that to do more would lose the contrast in the sky. As for distortion, I do lens correction, so there is no distortion. Mattbuck 11:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    OK, forget my comment about distortion. I've found the problem : the coastline isn't straight, the centre of the view seems farther than the sides. Differences of field depth have misled me. Your shot is alright.
    For the brightness, indeed, it's not easy to correct. - Bzh-99 18:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI IMHO ITS --The Photographer 20:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 18:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)