Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 30 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Montesquieu Pierre Bergoïoni.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Funerary inscription for Pierre Bergoïoni (13th ctry.), Montesquieu-des-Albères, France. --Palauenc05 07:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry, but with such soft texture on the tablet, I'm afraid the camera's focus ended up on the bricks over it. Try using focus lock for such motifs. W.carter 13:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree, I think, it is enough for QI --Hubertl 14:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Really? A stationary medium-sized object like this should not be hard to get a good focus on, but I will welcome the opinions of others at CR. W.carter 14:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment New version uploaded. --Palauenc05 08:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment why overwriting the first version, which has already been promoted as valued image? Both versions are useful. The first has low contrast due to soft lighting, but the new now has that hard shadow. -- Smial 09:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment @ Smial: Thanks for reviewing, actually, you are right. One shouldn't try to satisfy everybody. I also like the soft version better and don't find it too bad for QI. Hence, I go back to it and leave it as it is. --Palauenc05 11:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support As said above, due to soft lighting the sharpness appears to be not very good, but as Hubertl: Good enough for QI. -- Smial 15:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 19:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:16-07-20-Marktplatz-Eberswalde-RalfR-WP 20160720 17 30 37 Pro.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Marktplatz Eberswalde--Ralf Roletschek 15:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Unsharp (looks almost like digital zooming), "frozen" water (longer exposure may help). Poorly categorized (of course). --A.Savin 16:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Frozen water might be intentional, but the image has some CA and much oversharpening combined with loss of detail due to blurring noise reduction. See esp. structures on the black roof and the gables (Schmuckgiebel) of the building right. --Smial 09:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 19:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:16-03-30-Jerusalem_Mishkenot_Sha’ananim-RalfR-DSCF7635.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mishkenot Sha’ananim, Jerusalem --Ralf Roletschek 10:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion

Good quality. --Hubertl 11:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  •   Comment There is a large dust spot in sky, correctable --Llez 15:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)   Done --Ralf Roletschek 17:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment there are some other dust spots too, see notes. --Hubertl 18:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support ok now --Hubertl 19:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine! --Palauenc05 14:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 19:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii--AlixSaz 16:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose File too small (min 2 Mb) and stones overexposed.--W.carter 16:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see the overexposed stones, but the photo is nearly 3 Mpix (we count size Mpix not MB). --C messier 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Then plese lets see what a CR will bring. I dont see a significant overexposation. --Dirtsc 15:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Quality is good in my opinion. --Dirtsc 07:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me. Jkadavoor 09:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment If overexposure is the problem, surely that can be fixed in the edit? Waiting for a new version before voting. --Peulle 16:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for me --Uoaei1 20:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others + image is overcategorized. --A.Savin 16:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support OK 4 me --Palauenc05 15:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 19:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)