Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 25 2013

Consensual review edit

File:Lawrence Hill railway station MMB 17.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lawrence Hill railway station. Mattbuck 08:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support OK --A.Savin 17:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
      Oppose Not sharp I find. Please discuss. --Hockei 18:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support QI --Christian Ferrer 05:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad image composition (large platform area in center), not well-focused --Uoaei1 08:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    I'm curious to know how you think I could have avoided having a large platform area in the centre without standing on the tracks. Mattbuck 20:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    I can only guess what you want to show with this image, but a position on the other platform probably would be better.--Uoaei1 13:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment Composition is very good and balancing, the white line in the middle make a good balance with the railroad area and the platform, and guide the look to the flight point under the bridge. --Christian Ferrer 19:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Sharpness should be better. But the other question: What will this photo tell us? May be that the sky is interesting. That's the only. removed personal attack --A.Savin 00:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC) -- Spurzem 21:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
    Seriously, what is your problem with me? I would note that this is quality images - value is irrelevant here. Mattbuck 22:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
    Value is not completely irrelevant as a QI has to be within scope. However, I think your station imaging project is both interesting and valuable. --Kreuzschnabel 08:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
    OK, it's almost completely irrelevant. My point is that this isn't COM:VI. Mattbuck 19:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Looking outside from a station always makes me want to turn around. But there are more images of that station on Commons, and it’s technically OK. --Kreuzschnabel 20:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no. --Cekli829 11:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    Could you please explain why? That way I can be more careful in future. Mattbuck 12:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support imo it meets QI criteria --Vamps 16:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 05:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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

 

  • Nomination Main Town Hall, Gdansk, Poland --Poco a poco 20:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Distortion at the top is too extreme and imho reached a critical threshold. Straight verticals at every prize are not always a good idea. --Tuxyso 22:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  New version uploaded, I understand and share your opinion, but why the decline for such an easy fix? Poco a poco 20:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to describe in few words: The motive and composition implies straight verticals, but the extreme angle of view avoids that. OK in this shot, not OK here. Feel free to ask for further details on my discussion page or change to Discuss here. --Tuxyso 23:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
If you don't mind... --Poco a poco 21:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice sharpness at bottom, but upper part is unsharp and has signs of distortion and posterization --Vamps 18:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)