Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 13 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Église_Saint-Roch_d'Aiguèze_-_20150430_18h48_(10167).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination West face of the Saint-Roch church of Aiguèze, France. -- Medium69 10:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline *   Comment Please take another look at the picture you nominated. Too small, watermark. --Tsungam 10:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, I had to import a version that was not intended to Commons. This is fixed. --Medium69 11:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   OpposeSorry, the cross at top is cropped, and there is a strong distortion.--Jebulon 23:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • {{o}} You can use your own wide angle lens. It´s called: Use your feets and go back. On the other side - the crop fault is significant in this case. --Hubertl 23:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   weak --Hubertl 08:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
There was no opportunity to step back to this church. I'm already against the wall for this photo. --Medium69 02:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  Done I saw a bit of perspective. Not perfect, but better in my opinion. --Medium69 12:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not really better, I´m afraid. obviously, I had a cache problem. Yes, it´s better, I changed my vote to a weak pro.--Hubertl 08:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you ; it seemed to me that the problem came from the cache. But as I said, I find it better, but it is not ideal. It would take a tilt-shift lens saw the step back that we have on this church. --Medium69 10:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp at top. Double contours and lots of artifacts at all corners and edges against the sky. -- Smial 16:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp at top. Bottom cropped. Alvesgaspar 19:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp at top, strange artefacts at the edges of the church. --Hendric Stattmann 13:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 20:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Ecke_alsterkrug_zepp_2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Residential building complex "Alsterkrugchaussee / Zeppelinstraße" in Hamburg-Fuhlsbüttel --Dirtsc 14:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Overprocessed --Daniel Case 04:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
      Comment The image reproduces exactly the visual appearance of the building at that day. Can you be a little bit more precise, why it looks "overprocessed" to you? --Dirtsc 08:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtsc: Take a look at the hedge and the tree in front. They do not look natural, especially the spots where light is reflecting from the former. You may have gone overboard on the sharpening. Daniel Case 17:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I see nothing wrong with it; QI for me. --Óðinn 17:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support QI to me. --DKrieger 15:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Oversharpened. -- Smial 16:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  Neutral Vote changed to neutral after rework. Better, but I'm still not convinced, and we have worse images, which have been promoted... -- Smial 01:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The branches and leaves of the trees are oversharpened, which affects the main subject (the house). Alvesgaspar 19:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I tried to reduce the sharpening. Please take a look again. --Dirtsc 22:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Still quite a bit of sharpening applied, but the label "overprocessed" does not apply to the current version anymore. Apart from that, not too great, but fulfills QI criteria, in my opinion. --Hendric Stattmann 13:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 20:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)