Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 09 2015

Consensual review

edit

File:Iglesia_de_Santa_María,_Gdansk,_Polonia,_2013-05-20,_DD_05.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Church of St Mary, Gdansk, Poland. --Poco a poco 17:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Bad light conditions, deformed by perspective correction, not convincing composition. Sorry --Moroder 20:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  New version uploaded, should be enough for QI IMHO Poco a poco 20:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's good enough for QI, I would suggest a tighter crop though. --MB-one 16:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support looks fine for me. --Denkmalhelfer 05:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 08:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Weißstorch im Anflug auf Nest (3).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination White storks in Lower Saxony. --Hydro 07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline   Comment
  •   Oppose IMO too bright. Details missing.--XRay 08:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose see Xray and not sharp --Denkmalhelfer 12:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support It is sharp. Good composition. Overexposed parts good enough for QI. --Kadellar 00:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough imo. Alvesgaspar 13:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 08:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Waterfall_of_Cavaterra_in_Nepi_-_end.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Waterfall of Cavaterra in Nepi - end --Livioandronico2013 06:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Hubertl 06:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but some areas are clearly overexposed, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 07:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose same as poco --Denkmalhelfer 07:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A very nice picture but I have to agree with the opposers. Alvesgaspar 13:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 08:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Kłodzko,_klasztor_klarysek,_07.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Saints George and Adalbert church in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 08:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 09:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose disagree, strong shadow and noisy. --Denkmalhelfer 10:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support there are neither strong shadows nor too much noise for QI --Hubertl 14:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Neither too strong shadow nor any noise. Another hilarous oppose. --Cccefalon 00:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 18:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 08:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Wiener Rathaus 2007 Detail b.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Rathaus, Vienna --Tsui 22:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry incline and partly not sharp --Denkmalhelfer 10:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC) – This vote is unintelligible for me and should in my opinion not be allowed. -- Spurzem 16:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Perspective distortions from this position are ok, the main subject, the figure is completely sharp.--Hubertl 15:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Neutral perspective distortions? .--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I had decided to take not part here any longer. But if I see diverse votes I can not keep to myself. The composition of this image is very good. Where will you have perspective corrections? -- Spurzem 13:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Just curious: Can someone point me to an image of a similar subject (relatively close-up of a statue in front of a corresponding and several meters high part of the building's façade it is part of, seen from below, from ground, respectively a visitors, level) that is not "distorted"? Where the statue does not get unnaturally distorted, when correcting the buildings lines. -Tsui (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't know why this troll is doing reviews, but I already pointed out some days ago to him, that total perspective correction is not asked in QI for photos that are taken from a very close distance. Also, I would be very happy, if all photos here would have this level of sharpness --Cccefalon 23:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 08:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Westdeutsche_Lotterie_--_2015_--_5720.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Office building of the Westdeutsche Lotterie in Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 16:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Bold perspective, but good quality for me.--Famberhorst 16:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not for me, sorry, because of bold perspective... Needs a debate, IMO.--Jebulon 20:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, incline no QI --Denkmalhelfer 10:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, perspective. --Code 18:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective distortions too bad.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 08:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Erythronium tuolumnense White Beauty. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Tuolumnense Erythronium White Beauty. Location, Garden Tuinreservaat Jonker Valley.
    Famberhorst 04:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Hubertl 07:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid the white balance is wrong (green cast). Maybe should we discuss...--Jebulon 20:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Famberhorst can you check? thanks --Livioandronico2013 08:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Answer: the greenish drawing in the flour should be. That is the charm of this cultivar. See the two other pictures (below).--Famberhorst 15:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose looks green and partly not sharp --Denkmalhelfer 10:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I see no lack! -- Spurzem 21:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support WB ok imo. It just could be enhanced be cropping 10px tighter on the right side to get rid of the wedge shaped white in the upper part. But anyhow QI. --Cccefalon 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me --Isiwal 08:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 08:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Bratyslawa_Dom_u_Dobrego_Pasterza.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination House of the Good Shepherd --Albertus teolog 22:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Hubertl 07:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too soft in focus, shallow DoF, and some CA. Lets discuss. -- Slaunger 19:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose left part (stairs) very dark and noisy --Denkmalhelfer 10:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Slaunger --DKrieger 20:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It needs a perspective correction --Moroder 22:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 21:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2015-02-28_Electric_Avenue_Museumsquartier_Wien_Kunstmeile_9519.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Electric Avenue, Museumsquartier, Vienna --Hubertl 07:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Strong reflection of the flashlight on the metal --Denkmalhelfer 15:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC). Yes, there is a flashlight. So what? Übrigens: In Deutschland herrscht Vermummungsverbot. Benötigen wir hier Abstimmsocken? --Hubertl 20:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment The quality is ok, but your photobag and your own jacket flashlight is distracting. Sorry, You should take care of such details. --Denkmalhelfer (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
      Comment What are you talking about? --Hubertl 13:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support What's the problem? It's good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 08:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Nottingham railway station MMB 90 170519 222018.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Nottingham railway station. Mattbuck 07:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Too much contrast between roof and rest, hard shadows --Denkmalhelfer 15:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Discussion neccessary. --Hubertl 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Mattbuck, please lighten the shadows a bit, it will be QI for me then.--Hubertl 22:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
      Not done--Hubertl 21:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    Mattbuck??? --Hubertl 13:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me. --Kadellar 00:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine to me, as well. Alvesgaspar 14:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 08:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Geranium pratense 20140704 481.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Flower of Wood cranesbill (Geranium sylvaticum). --Bff 14:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • {{o}} 2,048 × 1,536 pixels. The minimum resolution for submissions is 4 megapixels. Too tight at top IMO--Lmbuga 15:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please don't apply this ominous rule before there is a real consensus about it which isn't found during a ad-hoc-eastern-holiday-pseudo-vote. --LC-de 22:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't apply the rule. Flowers of Geranium sylvaticum have 2-3 cm. With 3 cm is 4 megapixels too? This is QIC! The picture don't has good composition IMO, but it's a good picture--Lmbuga 16:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lmbuga. --Code 18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for me, the new rule is not in force. Alvesgaspar 11:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Ok Alvesgaspar. Composition, see below --Lmbuga 13:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Probably downsampled, but good--Jebulon 14:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 08:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Bad Wörishofen, Klosterkirche, Fresko - Geißelung.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Fresco Flagellation of Christ in the monastery church of Bad Wörishofen -- Spurzem 09:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   OpposeToo blurred. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Where? Perhaps you should get new glasses? ;-) I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 21:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Ah, I see. The fresco painter used a resolution not sufficient for QI. Additionally his brush strokes were a bit uneven and blurred -> too much alcohol? No, taking a look at the edges I dont think its blurred, even if its starting to loose contours due to ISO noise. But this is IMHO still tolerable in this case. --LC-de 11:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me --Rjcastillo 15:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 20:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose In my opinion the image lacks contrast, probably as a result of the poor lighting conditions. It is possible to fix though. Alvesgaspar 22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • weak   Support --Hubertl 22:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alvesgaspar --MB-one 12:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Chroma noise. Why ISO800? Object is not jumping around. -- Smial 10:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good 4 me. --Palauenc05 05:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dark, unsharp, noisy. --PereslavlFoto 10:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp, sorry.--Jebulon 14:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  Comment. Unsharp? Perhaps you should clean your glasses. But OK: If you think it is too bad, please decline. We have so much promoted images which are not better that we don't need this one. -- Spurzem 22:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Gzzz 19:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 21:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Ξυλόσκαλο 3751.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Fog on Lefka Ori, Crete. --C messier 13:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Sorry but: no meaningful file naming, stains, uncalibrated Colorspace. --F. Riedelio 15:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Name is in greek (i think this acceptable) and is the name of the place (+ image number from the camera). Uncalibrated Colorspace maybe due to RawTherapee, I think I can fix it. Can you note the stains on the picture? --C messier 18:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I note some stains on the picture. --F. Riedelio 15:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose fog blow out half of the picture --Denkmalhelfer (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment @F. Riedelio, thank you for your review. Cloned out the noted features, although I think it is more possible that these were real world objects, propably garbage. I cannot fix the color space in EXIF data, but sRGB was selected when saving from RawTherapee. --C messier 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Denkmalhelfer, I can't understand your comment. There is visible structure in the fog (which is also the subject of the image) and as is a thick fog it covers the top of the hills/mountains. I don't see a technical shortcoming there. --C messier 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment here we are not talking about creative or idea behin the picture, it is pure quality of the pciture. And this is not good due too half of the picture flooded in white fog. --Denkmalhelfer 12:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support with less of the half of the picture flooded in white fog. --Ralf Roletschek 11:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support as Ralf.. It was the fog that makes you capture this moment. --Hubertl 15:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even the front of the image, which is not affected by the fog is unsharp and undetailed. Alvesgaspar 22:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Not bad, just foggy. --Hockei 13:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • weak   Support. Contrast and sharpness in foreground could be better, but ok for QI. --MB-one 11:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Alve --Livioandronico2013 20:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I see no issues neither quality nor visual --Christian Ferrer 06:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As said above. --Palauenc05 05:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much fog, not aimed enough on the road and buildings... bad bottom crop --Gzzz 19:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 21:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)