Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 26 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Πλατεία Συντάγματος 1047.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Syntagma square, Athens. --C messier 21:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment A much higher f-value would have been better --Michielverbeek 22:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
      Comment Why? Everything is in focus, f/5.6 is where m43 lenses perform the best in sharpness. --C messier 22:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, too blurry because of low DoS and noisy especially in dark parts of trees Sturmjäger 22:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • *   Comment I think, this picture deserves some discussion. --Hubertl 22:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support OK to me --A.Savin 18:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Photo useless but ok--Σπάρτακος 19:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment IMO it's hard to say that an image is useless. You can't decide this for all purposes. Sorry.--XRay 17:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • +1--Jebulon 20:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
And even you can't, leave the thought of others is the first form of tolerance--Livioandronico2013 19:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
+1--Jebulon 20:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 21:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Aster_da_mont_Mastle_Gherdeina.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: The Aster alpinus in Gröden, (Dolomites) - 2100 m --Moroder 15:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Neutral In full resolution, it is too soft, but downsided at 3 Mpix is acceptably sharp. --C messier 17:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but it is not sharp enough. --Hockei 19:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
      Done I resized the image. In fact the size of the image had remained the same after cropping which blurred it. Thanks rot the Hint C messier --Moroder 07:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  Comment To downside or resize a picture doesn't make it better. IMO this is not the right way even if I often see it. --Hockei 06:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  Comment I agree with you that downsizing does not improve the image quality. But, this picture is a 1/3 crop of the original size of the image which was 7360 by 4912 pixels. Therefore the image size of the cropped picture should be 2500x 1668 pixels. That is the actual size now. Now, you can not say that it is not sharp enough at full size and that it is not QI --Moroder 20:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's see what other people say. --Hockei 08:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good to me but to downside or resize a picture doesn't make it better. --Atamari 23:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 06:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Arnhem-de Laar west, kunstwerk op de Kroonse Wal-Beersstraat foto4 2015-06-25 09.03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Arnhem De Laar-NL, sculpture --Michielverbeek 22:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Comment Please check WB.--XRay 17:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
      Done I have changed wb, changed colour blue and used stronger shadows --Michielverbeek 21:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better. Thanks. --XRay 11:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
      Comment
  •   Oppose The photo is tilted CW (to the right). --C messier 15:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Michielverbeek? --C messier 21:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 06:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Bengal_-_24.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Jeune Bengal femelle de trois ans. --Medium69 00:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Review   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
      Oppose IMO there is not enough space at the top. --XRay 04:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry: And low DoF, noisy.--XRay 10:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 06:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Hermetia illucens 03439.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Hermetia illucens --Vengolis 03:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose DOF too shallow. Eyes and thorax (back) are not sharp. --Hockei 13:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 06:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Parroquia_de_Nuestra_Señora_de_la_Asunción,_Real_del_Monte,_Hidalgo,_México,_2013-10-10,_DD_08.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination: Church of Our Lady of the Ascension, Real del Monte, Hidalgo, Mexico --Poco a poco 18:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Oppose Unnatural sky. Abuse of polarizing fliter ? Whole picture looks oversaturated.--Jebulon 21:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Nop, no filter was used here, and the settings look ok. I reduced saturation and uploaded a   new version Poco a poco 20:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 06:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Пмз-интерьер-18-собор-0602.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Spaso-Preobrazhensky cathedral in Pereslavl, altar --PereslavlFoto 12:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. Details missing, windows overexposed. --XRay 16:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Info I disagree about the sharpness is good enough, the OE of the windows is nearly negligible, but there is barrel distortion. --C messier 19:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    •   Info It's a building from XII century, there is nothing straight there. --PereslavlFoto 23:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The distortion of the verticals is nearly symmetrical. --C messier 08:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I corrected this barrel distortion and published a new file. I would like you to check it again. Thanks for the idea to improve this image! --PereslavlFoto 21:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me, although bottom crop could be better. --C messier 22:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 06:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Barntrup - 2015-05-22 - LSG-3919-0031 (2).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Proctected landscape area in Barntrup, Kreis Lippe, Germany (WLE2015-entry) --Tsungam 11:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Review   Oppose Tilted, pretty boring, sorry --Moroder 14:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
      Support The houses in the backgroud are vertical, it's a hilly region I suppose. This isn't FP to require an wow composition. Maybe cropping the sky for a rule of thirds composition would help a bit. --C messier 16:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The houses might be strait but the crane is tilted, so are the clouds!--Moroder 19:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 06:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Brücke Sophiental (2).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bridge in Sophiental (Wendeburg). --Hydro 08:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Needs perspective correction. --Cccefalon 10:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done--Michielverbeek 18:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  •   Support Looks good to me. --Tsungam 12:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Imo   Not done: The fence on the left side is leaning in considerably. It is also good practice here to let the first reviewer decide about the requested changes. --Cccefalon 20:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  •   Support Looks good to me. --Atamari 23:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 06:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Pałac_w_Żelaźnie,_oficyna_pałacowa_03.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination: Żelazno Palace annex 3 --Jacek Halicki 07:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Comment Strong white aliasing lines, probably after raising blue saturation and contrast. --Cccefalon 07:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Done --Jacek Halicki 10:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment unfortunately, there are still aliasing lines --Cccefalon 05:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support yes, but it seems acceptable for QI.--Jebulon 19:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, this is a serious postprocessing issue. --Cccefalon 20:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 06:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)