Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 26 2014

Consensual review edit

File:Rosa_×_centifolia_21072014_(1).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Rosa × centifolia. --Joydeep 08:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Too distracting background, could have been better with a lowed dof. --Averater 09:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Much better with the crop. --Averater 07:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't really see any problem with DoF here. --Joydeep 12:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good DOF IMO. Cropping, improve the photo because the door is less visible (see note and then delete it, please)--Lmbuga 11:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  Done Cropped. Thank you! --Joydeep 12:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support In any case, QI for me--Lmbuga 12:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice photo --Jacek Halicki 23:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Portsmouth MMB 25 Harbour.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Portsmouth harbour. Mattbuck 06:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose poor quality (very noisy), you seem to run out of ideas? "water of a harbour" isn't a valuable image for QI IMO --Taxiarchos228 06:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Doesn't seem too noisy to me. As for ideas, I thought it was pretty, and QIs do not need to be "valuable" in any manner. --Mattbuck 22:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
sorry, but please study the criteria at Commons:Quality images candidates carefully: Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects. A valuable picture is a must-have in general for alle pictures here at Wikimedia Commons. As administrator you should know what main goal this project have, shouldn`t you?. --Taxiarchos228 19:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noise, colour banding. -- Smial 11:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No meaningful description. Why did you upload this photo? What is it supposed to show? --Averater 07:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose totaly agree with Mattbuck, it is not very noisy and "valuable" is not the question here (for that see COM:VI), however it's blurred and/or unsharp at top left and right --Christian Ferrer 12:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
you're wrong Christian, see my comment above --Taxiarchos228 19:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well said Taxiarchos228, I totally agree with the criterion which you mentioned, and if this image had the sufficient qualities so it would have been valuable for the project and I would have been happy to bring my support to its promotion. However in no guidelines I read a list of subjects which can be promoted nor that one of us have the duty (even the right) to choose the subjects which can be promoted. --Christian Ferrer 02:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Taxiarchos228 07:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Río_Saigón,_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_06.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Saigon river, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam --Poco a poco 08:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion I find it rather messy and dark. --Mattbuck 22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
      New version uploaded, better now IMO, Poco a poco 20:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss, good enough to me now --Poco a poco 14:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, but I can't see the river. Image description needs some enhancement so we can learn what is depicted. -- Smial 21:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      Done Poco a poco 19:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Balung_Tawau_Sabah_Sawit-Kinabalu-Seeds-Sdn-Bhd-01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sawit Kinabalu Seeds Sdn Bhd, locate at Balung Estate, tawau, Sabah --Cccefalon 04:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    Not sure I like the DOF - the background is rather distracting. Mattbuck 22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    The trees are a little bit too dark to me, but I think it's ok. I would promote it. @Mattbuck: Ok for you? Or third opinion? -- DerFussi 07:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    Third opinion please.   Oppose Mattbuck 20:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support ok for me --Christian Ferrer 11:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support as stated above -- DerFussi 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Macaca_sylvanus_at_the_Ouzoud_Waterfalls_(5).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Barbary macaque (Macaca sylvanus) at the Ouzoud Waterfalls, Morocco. --M0tty 11:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Sorry, perhaps FP but too noisy, not QI IMO: "discuss". Yellowish.--Lmbuga 12:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lmbuga and burned out background --Christian Ferrer 17:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Christian Ferrer 05:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Playa_de_Levante,_Benidorm,_España,_2014-07-02,_DD_06.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Levante beach, Benidorm, Spain --Poco a poco 10:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sorry. I guess you did very good with such a light and subject, but it lacks sharpness (not of that on PP, but the "natural" one) and it looks OE and tilt. --Stegop 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)I still find that the POV and the natural light conditions were far from ideal, but I don't oppose the promotion. --Stegop 22:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I disagree, I uploaded a new version with a tilt of 0,2 degrees and retouched the highs but sharpness is ok IMHO. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 18:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support ok IMO --Christian Ferrer 21:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Christian Ferrer 05:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Angkor_Wat,_Camboya,_2013-08-15,_DD_021.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Bas relief in Angkor Wat, Cambodia --Poco a poco 08:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Good quality. --Mattbuck 22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure? Too less contrast and maybe a bit overexposed (check curves and levels). IMHO In this case you can exxagarate a bit with the curves to carve out the relief. -- DerFussi 13:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Done Poco a poco 18:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose No meaningful description/title. Is it really Angkor wat or som other temple in the area? which wall is it, north/east,south/west? Inner or outer wall? Is it the whole wall or just a section?
  •   Comment PLEASE SIGN YOUR WORDS. It may have been an oversight, but I request that the above vote is not counted if it don't have firm--Lmbuga 01:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Question Sorry I can only say this in Spanish: Observo una parte superior con luminosidad verde y más oscura. ¿Realmente el objeto es verde y más oscuro, o es la luz la que provoca eso? Te lo pregunto porque si fuese la luz, en mi opinión (no tenemos que coincidir en los criterios), habría que utilizar un filtro graduado para minorizar su importancia. No he votado anteriormente en esta foto por causa de esa duda. ¿Has usado algún filtro graduado?--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 01:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it back. It was the outer wall but not sure whether North or East. Quality is not good, either. Poco a poco 20:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cnossos-stegop-53-1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Minoan Palace at Knossos. South House. --Stegop 04:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Declined for reason of flooding QIC. Please read the nomination rules and come again. Taking part in active review would be highly appreciated. --Cccefalon 04:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think this might be QI. --Mattbuck 22:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment a bit tilted on left --Christian Ferrer 21:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Tilt or slight perspective distortion? I never correct the perspective completely because it gives a rather unnatural look, as our eyes expect to see a point of fugue when looking up (or down). And note that some elements of the structure on the background are not straight. --Stegop 23:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Tilt and perspective distortion, it don't need a big correction, so you can correct completely without gives an unnatural look IMO --Christian Ferrer 04:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you are wrong, mistakenly lead by the various "false verticals", like the wall on the right, which is naturally inclined, or the columns, that are thinner below than they are on the top. But I am not the best analyzer after having done the PP. Anyway, can you explain "where" is the tilt and the perspective distortion? --Stegop 21:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I added notes --Christian Ferrer 11:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank's. I corrected the perspective on the right side, per your suggestion. Is it ok now? --Stegop 22:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Christian Ferrer 05:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)