Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 19 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Blik op de skûtsjes tijdens het skûtsjesilen op het Sneekermeer.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Glance at the skûtsjes during during skûtsjesilen on the Sneekermeer.
    --Famberhorst 05:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Please consider increasing the exposure, it appears too dark to me. --Soloneying 07:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    •   Done. Hoy. Thank you.--Famberhorst 16:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Better, thanks. --Soloneying 11:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 16:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Het Poortgebouw in Rekem (deelgemeente) van Lanaken provincie Limburg in België 03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Het Poortgebouw in Rekem (part) of Lanaken province of Limburg in Belgium.
    --Famberhorst 15:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 16:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Kindly consider increasing the brightness. --Soloneying 07:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    •   Done. Hoy. Thank you.--Famberhorst 16:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Better. W.carter 11:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Still moody, but nice. --Soloneying 11:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 16:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Gedeelte van Paterskerk in Rekem (deelgemeente) van Lanaken provincie Limburg in België 04.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Part of Paterskerk in Rekem (part) of Lanaken province of Limburg in Belgium.
    --Famberhorst 16:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 16:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Way to dark, sorry. --Soloneying 07:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    •   Done. Hoy. Thank you.--Famberhorst 16:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Many thanks. I like that bird! --Soloneying 11:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 17:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Spain_Andalusia_Malaga_BW_2015-10-24_14-14-52.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Spain, Malaga, cathedral --Berthold Werner 11:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Consider tighter crop. --Soloneying 11:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support QI to me --Poco a poco 13:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO it's QI --XRay 19:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Crop is fine. If you crop it tighter, you just end up with a lot of sky as the center of the image. With that much going on in an image you also need a bit of space. As it is now, it is very near 'rule of three'. W.carter 09:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: I added a notation for the crop as per your suggestion somewhere else. The merits of the rule of thirds (for the record: I'm not blind to them) will likely be debated forever, but here I feel my suggested crop actually brings the composition closer to that ideal – at least it feels more balanced now. --Soloneying 13:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Crop or not is entirely up to Berthold Werner (although I would advice against it since you'd miss the nice line of the hedge). Also Soloneying, look at how I wrote at the other discussion about how you get other user's attention. I saw this just because I was reading the page anyway. W.carter 13:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Soloneying: I understood your proposal when I read your comment, but in this case it is a matter of taste and optional to the author IMHO. There are crops that you cannot live with, but it is not the case here. I'd understand this kind of comment at FPC, where an optimal composition is a must. Poco a poco 22:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support as others --Hubertl 06:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 05:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Spain_Andalusia_Malaga_BW_2015-10-24_14-03-04.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Spain, Malaga, Plaza de la Merced --Berthold Werner 12:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposed. --Soloneying 15:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment When looking on the histogram, you will see thatit's not underexposed. --Berthold Werner 11:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support ok for me --Hubertl 05:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment In LR6, I can increase exposure by 0.5-1 stop and tweak for a IMO better result. So consider it just constructive criticism.
  •   Support Ok for me as QI. If it was underexposed the white t-shirt and umbrellas would not shine so brightly. W.carter 10:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 17:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Spain_Andalusia_Malaga_BW_2015-10-24_13-12-31.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Spain, Malaga, Plaza de la Merced, Statue of Picasso --Berthold Werner 05:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Tighter crop (especially on the left) would help. Also, maybe raise the shadows on the statue a bit? --Soloneying 11:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If you are suggesting a crop, it helps if you leave a notation about this on the image to show what you mean. It makes the process easier. W.carter 09:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: Thanks, I added a notation. --Soloneying 12:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Soloneying: If you want to get my attention you have to use the 'ping' system, which is writing as I just did for 'pinging' you (look in the code) and sign with the four squigglies during the same save. That will activate the system. You should also see to creating your user page since it seems you have decided to be active here. W.carter 12:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A crop is not necessary for QI here and is up to Berthold. W.carter 10:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 17:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Praia_de_Barra_dende_Monte_Branco,_Ponteceso_2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View of beach of Barra from Mount Branco, Ponteceso (Spain) --Elisardojm 17:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
      Oppose Sorry, I think this is not a QI. Sky overexposed and blurry. --Basotxerri 20:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately, I have to agree with Basotxerri. W.carter 20:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support   Done 3,648 × 2,736 pixels and it needs 2 megapixels (1600x1200). Sky is not disturbing IMO--Lmbuga 05:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    Revert, sorry--Lmbuga 05:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per others --Palauenc05 20:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 17:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)