Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 22 2015

Consensual review

edit

File:2010-04-25-breda-by-RalfR-20.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Parking for bicycles in Breda, Netherlands --Ralf Roletschek 09:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose I would have preferred an inside view. --Medium69 13:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • IMHO, it needs to be discussed. I don't see something wrong with composition, but I would expect from a 3 Mpix image to be sharper. --C messier 17:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed, lots of sharpening artifacts. -- Smial 09:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 08:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Āraiši järvelinnus.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Āraiši lake dwelling site. Kruusamägi 00:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose A very beautiful composition but too unsharp. -- Alvesgaspar 00:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support It is at the limit, but still acceptable and with a good resolution --Christian Ferrer 12:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough for me.--Ermell 08:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 08:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Girl and cat.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Girl and kitten -- Alvesgaspar 14:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose CA in the edges of the hairs, not enough sharp and too noisy look at the nose. --El Golli Mohamed 22:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   SupportGood quality. --Ralf Roletschek 04:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Medium69 11:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lots of artifacts by denoising and retouching. -- Smial 12:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Smial and El Golli. Stamp use traces visible in the hair area on the left.--Ermell 08:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 08:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Palacio_Epìscopal,_Tarazona,_España,_2015-01-02,_DD_06.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Episcopal palace, Tarazona, Spain --Poco a poco 10:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Unnatural geometry, subject blurry on top -- Alvesgaspar 16:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I have made a slight adjustment in the ratio, but couldn't see any issues with this picture, though. I know that you will never believe my word if I say that it looks actually the way it is. On the right there is no floor and I didn't want to climb on a wall to take the picture, therefore it is not parallel to the facade. I don't think that that's a reason to decline. --Poco a poco 19:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Besides the unsharpness, there is a main issue in this image: the disturbing and unnecessary geometric distortion of the subject. I really can't believe that this facade looks like this, especially when photographed from the present spot. My impression is that it results from a crop of the left-most part of a photograph centered way to the right. -- Alvesgaspar 12:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I think, the building is really distorted. This is not an photographic problem. --Hubertl 19:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Funny that the lines converge to a vanishing point, even the ones at the base. Extraordinary building. Let us be serious, please!-- Alvesgaspar 20:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I´m not kidding, Alvesgaspar, I mean it! --Hubertl 21:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, some disaster must have happened after this photo was taken (an earthquake?): [1]. Extraordinary indeed! Let us be serious, intelectually honest and focused on which is really important to preserve: the quality of the pictures and the quality of the assessments. What is more important: to have the largest number of QI or the best ones? Alvesgaspar 21:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment In the photo you show, just below the windows, we clearly see that the building is not straight in an architectural purpose, exactly like in the photo candidate. It is not a deformation made by a perspective correction. --Christian Ferrer 08:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That is not what I mean. I'm talking about the horizontal lines of the facade (the one facing the camera), which are supposed to be shown parallel to each other ... and horizontal. That is clearly explained above! -- Alvesgaspar 09:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Now I'm getting really confused here. How would you expect horizontals to be horizontal if the plane from which I took the picture is not parallel to the facade as I explained above? Did somebody ask you in this picture of yours to make horizontals horizontal?. I would like to have a large amount of QIs, no doubt about that, but also QIs that deserve that. In this case, I haven't yet understood what is the hurdle not to give it the QI stamp. Poco a poco 18:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The reason for the distortion is that the camera was not pointed towards the facade, which would have been perfectly possible, but to some point to the right. That was a choice of the photographer, not an imposition of the difficult conditions. -- Alvesgaspar 19:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I cannot follow. In the picture of yours I mentioned above you did exactly the same. You were not in right in the center point in front of the facade and that's why there is a vanishing point and horizontals are not horizontal. The pictures was though of good quality, that's why I believe that it is one, the same applies here. Poco a poco 21:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I think also that the building is distorted.--El Golli Mohamed 21:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 22:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)