Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 05 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Cyclura nubila July 2015-1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: A cuban ground iguana in Antwerp Zoo -- Alvesgaspar 08:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Comment quite noisy and soft. Charlesjsharp 16:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  Done Fixed -- Alvesgaspar 22:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
-- Out of limbo, to CR Alvesgaspar 19:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  Question limbo is equivalent to no reaction within 45 hours? --Cccefalon 12:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Given the circumstances, I did not expect further reactions. A quick look at my nominations presently at CR will reveal a pattern. Alvesgaspar 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is you, I think it is the zoo. -- RaboKarbakian 03:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 11:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Monkeys July 2015-1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Two Black-capped squirrel monkeys (Saimiri boliviensis), Antwerp Zoo -- Alvesgaspar 00:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Does not seem very sharp. Charlesjsharp 16:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
  •   Comment I disagree. A second opinion, please. Alvesgaspar 09:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment the tops of the heads are soft. -- RaboKarbakian 03:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Jkadavoor 12:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment IMO the filename should be improved. --XRay 17:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support not perfect sharp, Charles is right, but enough for QI --Hubertl 22:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Soft in the head. -- RaboKarbakian 00:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me --Livioandronico2013 20:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Σπάρτακος 07:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 11:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Cyclura nubila July 2015-2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Portrait of cuban ground iguana -- Alvesgaspar 00:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Does not seem very sharp, and noisy. I don't think this is fixable. Charlesjsharp 16:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
      Done Yes, it was. New version uploaded. Alvesgaspar 21:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
      Comment Noise nicely reduced. Can you sort out over-exposure on head? undefined 23:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
      Comment I think it is good enough for QI -- Alvesgaspar 09:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Indeed (for me), even is the Bg is still a bit noisy--Jebulon 19:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support QI enough. Jkadavoor 12:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 11:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Imam Hussein Hadith inscription 00 (4)2.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Imam Hussein Hadith inscription, Al-Hussein Mosque, Cairo, Egypt.--لا روسا 05:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --El Golli Mohamed 21:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, not a QI to me, crop too tight, needs vertical perspective correction and that shadow is really disturbing (for me a no-go) --Poco a poco 22:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Poco.--Jebulon 18:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 11:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Jorge,_La_Coruña,_España,_2015-09-25,_DD_43.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination St George's church, La Coruña, Spain --Poco a poco 21:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality--Lmbuga 22:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Sorry, its a fine photo, but the left side is leaning in. --Hubertl 20:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
      Done Poco a poco 20:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unnatural geometric distortion. Maybe it can be fixed. -- Alvesgaspar 20:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for QI. --Hubertl 21:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- Come on guys! There is much more in a QI than perfect verticals and the absence of dust spots, noise, CA, blown highlights, etc! The image has to look right and be pleasant to the eye, which is not the case here. Please look carefully at the towers of the church. Looks wrong, right? Alvesgaspar 10:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose What Alvesgasper has said is true! One tower looks like it doesn't want to be with the other. Better for editorial and not for encyclopedia. (Ima gonna bookmark this for editorial, if you fix it, please upload a new one, even!) -- RaboKarbakian 15:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Alves ... And I'm not a strong fan of the light...--Jebulon 18:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please, make up your minds! It looks the way it looks because I fixed the first oppose. Now you don't like it. Should I upload an alternative version?! Poco a poco 20:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    I've uploaded one last version Poco a poco 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support The light is a bit hard and the picture is maybe 0.5 ev overexposed, but it looks fine to me. The church looks strange because it's wider on top than below. But, while it is an ugly building, the execution of this photo is acceptable. As far as I can tell, there is little or no distortion as the lens is close to being rectilinear. The composition does a good job of depicting the subject in the context of its surroundings, which makes it quite interesting to see the contrast between the old and the less old. Arguing about the finer points of the aesthetics of composition is more suited to photography critiques and featured pictrue candidacy; on a technical level, I believe this photo is fine. Dllu 03:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed and shape of church are major cons. --PetarM 16:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 14:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)