Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 08 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Arena_of_the_amphitheatre_of_El_Jem.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Amphithéâtre --Hamed Gamaoun 10:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Nice composition, but the sunlight spoils the image, only the shadow part is well done. It is a big job, but please repair the overexposed parts of this photo --Michielverbeek 13:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The overexposed partys are looking much better. I was hoping it would make the photo also sharp enough, but I think it did not. Would like to have more opinions so discuss --Michielverbeek 05:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not an expert at judging for overexposure, but if it's no longer overexposed, a problem remains with glary light, and the far right side of the arena is indeed unsharp. I would tend not to support a promotion to QI. -- Ikan Kekek 08:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The far right is better, but I'm not satisfied with the near right. Sorry about that. -- Ikan Kekek 08:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality: right part blurred, sharpening artefacts --A.Savin 15:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 16:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Reklameskilt Hjemmet.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Antique advertising sign for the Norwegian weekly "Hjemmet", now at the Norwegian Museum of Cultural History.--Peulle 14:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Looks somewhat distorted. Can his imagination. To me well enough.--Famberhorst 15:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Picture is tilted (go by the the red central line) and you really need to put your pictures in more narrower categories, this one is way to wide. --W.carter 11:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilted (or needs horizontal correction). WB a bit too blueish, IMO. Could be enhanced by adjusting highlights and shadows. Unsufficient category. --Basotxerri 20:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  Comment I've uploaded a new version to explain the problem. Still pending to correct the categories, though. --Basotxerri 18:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • That's very grand and helpful of you. :) I could of course add just add the proper categories here, same as I often do as an example for new users who don't know how to do that yet. However, this is made and nominated by a very experienced user who should be familiar with the guidelines for QICs and the category system. cart-Talk 18:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Somewhat low DOF, but still ok. I cannot see a problem with perspective, as this is neither achitectural photography nor a technical reproduction. --Smial 08:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support as Smial. --Ralf Roletschek 18:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Reflection is disturbing. And unsufficient categorization.--Jebulon 21:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Agreed on the reflection. -- Ikan Kekek 11:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  Comment The reflection is essential to discover the 3D appearance of that object and it makes that image "living". I do not understand, why this can be a reason to decline. -- Smial 12:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  Comment - It's glary, and its placement is distracting. -- Ikan Kekek 23:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient sharpness; no meaningful categories --A.Savin 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 16:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)