Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 23 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Buesa_Arena_01.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Basketball stadium in Vitoria-Gasteiz --Basotxerri 16:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Tilted. --Medium69 12:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
      Fixed Rotated 2 degrees. --Basotxerri 16:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
      Comment I put it under discussion because I do not see the difference because of the current bug Commons.--Medium69 16:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support I could see the new version. --Medium69 22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Medium69 22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Chicago_2007-14.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Two Prudential Plaza, Chicago. -- Alvesgaspar 00:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Sky is completely blown, date and time are missing, description in a second language is missing, no colouspace information. --Code 05:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- The pure white sky is an obvious aesthetical choice (an example of a similar QI is here). Date (November 2007) is given in the information template. None of the other elements are mandatory according to the QIC guidelines. Alvesgaspar 08:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • You can't declare every defect to an aesthetical choice. Your choice simply prevents this image from being QI. "November 2007" is not a date. --Code 06:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • A more precise date was inserted. I don't declare any deffect as an aesthetical choice, what made you think that? In this case, the sky was turned into an almost pure white, on purpose. If this picture deserves or not to be promoted will be a collective decision; that is why I moved the nomination to QIC. I will be surprised if it is rejected while this other one has been recently promoted. Alvesgaspar 13:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 21:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Pretzfeld_P4184333.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Castle in Pretzfeld --Ermell 22:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sky posterized. --Medium69 01:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      Done
    new version--Ermell 22:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      CommentI put it under discussion because right now, Wikipedia bug and I see the same image before and after. --Medium69 01:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough now. Alvesgaspar 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
      Comment I'll trust this vote because I still have the bug :( (Commons:Village_pump#Thumbnails_not_updating). --Medium69 01:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 21:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Dernekamp,_Fachwerkspeicher_--_2015_--_5732.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Timber framed building in the hamlet Dernekamp, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the subject is too hidden --Medium69 15:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. Technically acceptable, very nice lighting and composition. --Smial 12:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me --El Golli Mohamed 14:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit soft but good enough -- Alvesgaspar 15:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 21:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Fotoworkshop_Köln_7.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Hanimex 28 mm f/2.8 --Denis Barthel 08:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment nur so nebenbei: Hast du einen manuellen Weißabgleich gemacht? Mir scheint der Kontrast etwas überarbeitungsbedürftig. --Hubertl 09:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose   Not done --Medium69 13:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support let's discuss, i have edit the picture. --Ralf Roletschek 23:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • {{o}} There has nothing changed... --Hubertl 05:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    Please watch the image at full size and use purge. There seems to be a problem with the servers atm. --Tsungam 11:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    yes it is a serious problem :( --Medium69 13:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    siehe auch Commons:Forum#Irgendwas spinnt (Cache) --Ralf Roletschek 21:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support New image looks good. --Tsungam 11:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 13:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Please clean the lens in the lab (and the background) -- Alvesgaspar 15:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support in general. Would be fine if you clean it a bit, as Alvesgaspar already said.--Hubertl 19:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Kaneohe_Bay_LC400.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Kāneʻohe Bay area with the Kāneʻohe; View from the Nuʻuanu Pali Lookout, Oʻahu., Hawaiʻi, US --LC-de 10:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Medium69 13:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Horizon have to be straightened. --Milseburg 17:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support acceptable for QI. --Hubertl 08:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support But I would crop a bit on the bottom, because of the too dark foreground. Alvesgaspar 15:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 21:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Antwerp_Belgium_Museum-Plantin-Moretus-02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Antwerp, Belgium: Interiors of Museum Plantin-Moretus --Cccefalon 05:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Hubertl 08:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry but too noisy in the dark part of the photo in the lower part look at the chairs, not a QI for me. --El Golli Mohamed 15:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Medium69 15:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Difficult lighting very well handled. --Smial 09:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support QI --Rjcastillo 20:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Please correct the ccw tilt. (I was there in July) -- Alvesgaspar 15:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done rotated a little bit cw. --Cccefalon 19:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that was not enough, there still is a strong feeling of tilt. -- Alvesgaspar 18:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Medium69 22:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Antwerp_Belgium_Het-Steen-01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Antwerp, Belgium: Statue de Lange Wapper in front of Het Steen --Cccefalon 05:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality --Halavar 09:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but there is a perspective problem look at the towers. --El Golli Mohamed 15:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Medium69 15:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me --Rjcastillo 20:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is one of those cases where perfect vertical don't work. The castle looks weird. Please add some more sky at the top. -- Alvesgaspar 15:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  Comment I disagree. From that distance, rectilinear verticals can be expected. For the sky: I think, it is a matter of taste as it is not too tight on top. However, to show my good will, I added more sky (63 pix). --Cccefalon 19:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the extra "air" on top. Concerning the verticals I still have the feeling that the building is larger on the top than on the bottom. -- Alvesgaspar 18:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Medium69 22:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

File:MAXIMATOR-High-Pressure-Manometer-01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A MAXIMATOR high-pressure manometer. The pressure gauge is suitable for pressures up to 2500 bar with an accuracy class of 1,0. --Cccefalon 05:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose sorry but the lower part is over exposed.--El Golli Mohamed 22:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Tour de force. --Johann Jaritz 05:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Johann Jaritz: oppose or support ? --Medium69 11:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    • It was initially a support. Golli just squeezed in with the decline and put his oppose in the line before Johann's vote. I added the support tag. --Cccefalon 14:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Just to make it clear: I chose another word for "masterpiece". It is of excellent quality in any case. --Johann Jaritz 04:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Obviously the act of revenge of a tunisian citizen who is not willing to learn from is photographic issues. Sad, that he wants to make battlefield out of QIC. Also a foul play as he insertzed his decline before the promote, making it look like it was him who first declined it. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk)
  •   Oppose Not optimal lighting. The reflection in the lower part disturbs the image. Overall slight overexposure. Very good composition and sharpness. (Die Spiegelung der vorderen Kante des Hintergrundkartons versemmelt es. Lichtführung ändern, so daß die nicht angestrahlt wird. Kann man an der Lampe abschatten. Oder schwarzen Karton außerhalb des Blickwinkels plazieren und den hellen Teil damit so abdecken, daß sich eben keine Kanten im Glas spiegeln können. Ich bin ja Freund schwarzer/dunkler Hintergründe, da hat man das Theater nicht, aber halt nen dunklen Hintergrund... Irgendwas ist immer...) -- Smial 11:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Medium69 11:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me. --Milseburg 22:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I really don't see any problem. Alvesgaspar 15:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Falkenstein-026457-Pano.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Donnersdorfer Falkenberg Panorama --Ermell 15:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sky is not natural. Oversatured ? --Medium69 02:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Oversaturated. But fixable, with the original image. Alvesgaspar 10:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Done Blue sat reduced.--Ermell 11:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ermell - It is not a question of the blues only. Try to increse the overall brightness and, if necessary, reduce saturation a bit. You will see how the image improves dramatically (I tried). Also, you would have achieved a sharper image with another exposure choice: that is, a lower shutter speed and a higher f number (lower aperture). Apparently, the camera was set to automatic exposure, which is not usually a good idea. -- Alvesgaspar 13:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ermell: I offer this alternative (fr:Fichier:Medium69 - Image de travail.jpg). If you agree, I replace your image.
  • @Alvesgaspar - When you have a look at the angle of the shadows you can see that the picture was taken very close to sunset. At that time of the day the sunlight was more orange than white an therefore the color management was not as easy as you suggest. The lens quality at f 4,5 is excellent and allowed me to use ISO 100 and if you read the metadata carefully you might notice that the camera mode was set to manual which is, I agree with you, the best for panos.--Ermell 22:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Medium69Thanks for your efforts but I have tried some versions with different wb myself and prefer my version in this case.--Ermell (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It's your choice, but I maintain my vote; I can not find the natural colors. Sorry.--Medium69 02:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I am familiar with this kind of color in the late afternoon. It´s ok for me - maybe raising the overall depth a bit --Hubertl 08:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I will keep my oppose, as the picture is still underexposed and oversaturated. The version proposed by Medium69 above is much better. -- Alvesgaspar 12:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree with the others for the underexposure and the colour cast, but I also think Medium69's reworked version is overdone. I tried a correction by myself, see File:Falkenstein-026457-Pano-CN.jpg (retaining the afternon light). I'm not sure if it's better or more realistic, but I think the main problems are less distinctive there. --Carschten 01:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    I would be willing to change my vote for this version. --Medium69 02:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    me too, but as long as it's the current candidate, I   oppose because of the underexposure and the red cast. --Carschten 11:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--El Golli Mohamed 21:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 09:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)