Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 06 2016

Consensual review

edit

File:16-07-06-Rathaus_Graz_Balkon-RR2_0192.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Rathaus Graz, Blick vom Balkon --Ralf Roletschek 09:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Needs a little bit of perspective correction, buildings are leaning at the edges, otherwise fine. W.carter 08:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment this must be, it's a photo straight down. --Ralf Roletschek 16:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree, it is such a small correction that is needed and the photo would be perfect. Let's hear what the others have to say. W.carter 10:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No problem with the perspective, it looks natural and I believe this is not an architectural photo. But, sorry Ralf, neither file name nor image description nor categories tell anything about the depicted scene. No balcony, no town hall in sight. -- Smial 10:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Cat and description added. I have nominated a QI, not a quality description and categorysation. --Ralf Roletschek 12:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
"3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description."
That is why you were asked to give those. There is probably also a German translation for it. A QI is not just a good picture, it is also the documentation behind it so that it can be easily found as well as used in the proper place on all the Wikipedias that this collection of photos is really all about, so the name, description and cats are very important for the search system. If someone writing an article about Graz Rathaus and did a search for a picture of its balcony and entered "Rathaus Graz Balkon" in the search box, they would be very disappointed by your picture, just as someone writing about the square below the Rathaus would never find your perfect picture with this name. I assume that you want your pictures to be used on Wikipedias all over the world and that you are not just using this as a photo club and a free photo storage site. w.carter-Talk 16:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 15:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Lech - Kriegerhorn - Wasserspeicher 01.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Water reservoir at Kriegerhorn mountain, Lech, Vorarlberg, Austria --Basotxerri 17:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Overexposed, see mountains --Ezarate 14:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, the highlights were bright but IMO not blown. I've uploaded a new version, please check. --Basotxerri 19:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Another opinions are needed here, it´s too bright for me --Ezarate 20:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support for sharpness and composition. I don't see anything wrong with it (the first version). Yes, it is Fifty Shades of White, but that's just normal for winterpicsnowpic my bad, you need sunglasses for such a vista. According to the histogram the first version was actually on the underexposed side. Check it out and you'll see. The new darker version is very much on the underexposed side. A middle way would probably be best (or the first one). --w.carter-Talk 15:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support   Neutral Dark, nice composition. Support if changed --Moroder 09:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dull. First version is better. --Smial 09:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)   Support First version. -- Smial 09:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've uploaded a version with intermediate brightness. Thank you for all your comments and please check again. By the way, this winter photo is July :-) --Basotxerri 15:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I still don't understand what's wrong with the initial version. Yes, there are some areas with clipping, but these are ineglible, because there are no "wrong" colors. -- Smial 15:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment I personally would prefer the first version, too, because I think it reflects better how it was out there and if I would have had a doubt about a too highlighted area, I wouldn't have nominated the pic. Doesn't matter, I go back to the first version, later you promote it or not :-) --Basotxerri 16:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 05:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Puppet theater in a former power station building. Schwerin, Germany.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination: Puppet theater in a former power station building. Schwerin, Germany--Ввласенко 07:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC) too strong distorted. --Ralf Roletschek 07:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective distortion, poor categories --A.Savin 13:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support o.k. for me.--Ermell 12:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  Comment New version. Gruss --Nightflyer 20:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 03:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)