Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 24 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Oficinas_salitreras_de_Humberstone_y_Santa_Laura,_Chile,_2016-02-11,_DD_73-81_PAN.jpg edit

 

  Comment Yeah, the buildings are leaning all over the place, although I'm not sure if that's a flaw in the photo or just poor building.--Peulle 09:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment It looks like a real problem, I take it back for now and will re-nominate after fixing those issues Poco a poco 20:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? Peulle 09:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basilica_San_Paolo_Maggiore_facciata_Napoli.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The Basilica di San Paolo Maggiore church in Naples. --Moroder 13:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose sorry but at full resolution the 1/3 upper part is blurred to my eyes --Christian Ferrer 14:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree --Moroder 15:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Per Christian, and I question the blotchy sky, too. -- Ikan Kekek 06:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Resolution is high, which counts in its favour, but there are distortions in the corners and the sky could be less noisy.--Peulle 09:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 14:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Agnolo Gadi Washington October 2016-1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Madonna Enthroned with Saints and Angels, by Agnolo Gadi (1380/90). National Gallery of Art, Washington. -- Alvesgaspar 11:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. Nominated FPC --Moroder 12:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional   Oppose No promotion with me before categories sufficiently fixed --A.Savin 14:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
      Comment There is nothing wrong with the categories--Moroder 15:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
      Comment Oh really? --A.Savin 15:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
      Question What do you want? be straight we don't have time to waste --Moroder 22:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
      Comment I think the missing category would be Category:National Gallery of Art. I added it, which took less time than this discussion. Ikan Kekek 05:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    Please sign your comments. It is intentional from my point to request this job from the photographer rather than doing it myself, which I'm of course able to. I know from experience that otherwise this particular photographer will not learn to add proper categories, unfortunately. --A.Savin 14:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    Understood completely, and sorry for forgetting to sign. Ikan Kekek 05:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 05:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
      Comment Actually, the category should be Category:Paintings in the National Gallery of Art. So I'm substituting that. -- Ikan Kekek 05:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--Peulle 09:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 12:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Lucas Cranach Washington October 2016-5.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Montage of two paints by Lucas Cranach the Elder. A Princess of Saxony and A Prince of Saxony (c.1517). National Gallery of Art, Washington. -- Alvesgaspar 11:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 12:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional   Oppose No promotion with me before categories sufficiently fixed --A.Savin 14:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
      Comment I added Category:Paintings in the National Gallery of Art, but the names of the two paintings should also be given as categories, if possible. -- Ikan Kekek 05:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm not a categorization expert but one thing I know from the user's perspective is that over-categorizing can do more damage to the project than under-categorizing. For example, it is often a nightmare for someone wanting to browse through the works of some well-known painter because they are spread over dozens of categories. -- Alvesgaspar 14:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I understand that finer categories may be useful for certain applications (or just for the fun of it). But such fine categories shouldn't sacrifice the more general ones, for example "Paintings by xxx", because they facilitate simple searches. While I will not engage in any kind of crusade on this matter I will continue to categorize the pictures I upload the way I consider appropriate. Alvesgaspar 15:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I am always reluctant to add new categories unless there is a real need to do so. In this I think that the contributor should merge the categories associated with the two constituent images into a single category list and if that list is suitable, to make no further changes. Martinvl 18:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The current categories seem fine to me. QI.--Peulle 07:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 12:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Norderney,_Hafen,_Nationalparkhaus_--_2016_--_5371.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination National park house “Watt Welten” in harbour on Norderney, Lower Saxony, Germany --XRay 05:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Maybe make the sky darker, but good enough for me.--Famberhorst 06:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
      Done Thank you. It's better now. --XRay 07:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but for me still overexposed --A.Savin 14:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The building is nice but unfortunately I have to agree with A.Savin that the sky is overexposed, sorry. --W.carter 12:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 12:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Manet Toreador Washington September 2016-1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The Dead Toreador, by Edouard Manet. National Gallery of Art, Washington DC. -- Alvesgaspar 15:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment I would crop off the pale strip on the left-hand edge --Alandmanson 07:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)-
  •   Comment   Done Thanks for noticing, Alvesgaspar 11:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm happy this is good quality. --Alandmanson 09:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --W.carter 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted Peulle 09:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

File:2016supermoon-owlphotostudio.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 11/14/2016 Supermoon in London eye. By User:Owlphotostudio --Yann 23:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. For beeing a QI it's too unsharp, small and grainy. --Milseburg 13:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support - This one seems just about good enough for QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 10:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Many artifacts, also has a missing evidence of permission tag. --C messier 09:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't see why it needs a permission. AGF unless you find a copy on the web. Regards, Yann 17:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. Not QI. Poor quality IMO--Lmbuga 01:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Not bad at all for the amount of magnification required. This is a 10 MP image and the pixel-level sharpness for that resolution is probably borderline by our usual standards, but the moon is a difficult subject and I'm fine with it not being as high-quality as an ordinary architecture photo. It looks perfect at 2 MP. --King of Hearts 03:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find the freckles all over the surface disturbing. Probably the reason why the author choose y B+W version. --Ermell 10:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell. --W.carter 11:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 12:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)