Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 06 2017

Consensual review edit

File:Leucanthemum vulgare 18.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Leucanthemum vulgare in St-Cyprien-sur-Dourdou, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 07:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment It is underexposed Poco a poco 07:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I corredt it sunday. Tournasol7 23:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sure? I can make a little bit of brignes, if you want. Tournasol7 15:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Still believe it is underxposed --Poco a poco 22:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support the last version Poco a poco 23:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ue for me as well.--Ermell 19:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support o.k. mow--Ermell (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment   New version, now it's better? Tournasol7 19:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great detail! If it were even sharper, it might be a viable FP candidate. Heck, it still might be. -- Ikan Kekek 00:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --W.carter 13:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Phatemy_Graves_at_Aswan_by_Hatem_Moushir_50.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Fatimid Cemetery in Aswan --Hatem Moushir 06:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Weak oppose Quality is not good --Billy69150 20:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment a new version added with correction . —Hatem Moushir 18:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, quality is the always not good --Billy69150 13:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sharpening is overdone. Half of the post sharpening or less would do.--Ermell 19:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks oversharbend, see the hem at the edge to the sky, also tilted ccw. --Milseburg 10:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --W.carter 13:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Polanica_Zdrój,_dom_zdrojowy,_17.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Drinking house in Polanica-Zdrój 4 --Jacek Halicki 06:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 07:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image has noise and noise reduction artefacts --Shansov.net 09:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Shansov.net, sorry. --MB-one 08:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Still o.k. for me.--Ermell 19:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for the noise and lighting.--Peulle 12:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --W.carter 13:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Polanica_Zdrój,_dom_zdrojowy,_18.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Drinking house in Polanica-Zdrój 5 --Jacek Halicki 06:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 07:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too noisy for an image with not very high resolution --Shansov.net 09:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Shansov.net
Each vote requires a signature to be valid.--Peulle 12:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not high enough quality considering the fairly low resolution.--Peulle 12:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --W.carter 13:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Alp Farur (1940 meter) via Stelli (2383 meter) naar Gürgaletsch (2560 meter) 06.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mountain trip from Alp Farur (1940 meter) via Stelli (2383 meter) to Gürgaletsch (2560 meter). Route information pasovergang Stelli (2383 meters).
    --Famberhorst 07:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 08:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, I can't read that. --Basile Morin 02:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I can read everything, but I think that having the signs in shadow with light sky around them is not a very effective way to depict the subject. Background should not detract from the subject. -- Ikan Kekek 04:37, 30 September 2017
  •   Done. New version. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 06:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - Thanks. I still don't love it - it's still pretty dark, but it might be adequate now, so I'll be neutral for the time being. -- Ikan Kekek 07:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. --Peulle 16:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done. lighter.--Famberhorst 16:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not a perfect photo, but good enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 06:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 08:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support That's good quality now. --MB-one 08:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --W.carter 13:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:2017_-_Svetitskhoveli_Cathedral_-_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The Svetitskhoveli Cathedral, Mtskheta --Moahim 07:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Unsharp and may be moved --Ezarate 22:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Where are unsharp parts located? It has good sharpness at all, only one small element - moving children. --Moahim 06:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality IMO. --Tsungam 12:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Quality looks fine to me, but isn't there a category for Svetitskhoveli Cathedral? If so, that's the category that the file should have, not a general category of Cultural heritage monuments in Georgia, which is way too broad. -- Ikan Kekek 06:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment This category added by default while uploading. I have added several appropriate categories. --Moahim 19:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Please read com:overcat. You have way too many categories now, most of them too general. -- Ikan Kekek 20:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Ok. I think, four categories are enough. --Moahim 21:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  Question - Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Georgia looks unnecessary to me. Isn't Category:Svetitskhoveli a subcategory of that? -- Ikan Kekek 22:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  Comment I can remove it, but this category is default after uploading. Maybe it's better to leave it? --Moahim 06:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, no.   Support. -- Ikan Kekek 21:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --W.carter 13:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:HE1078922_Gates_And_Railings_Along_North_Boundary_Of_Royal_Naval_College_(1).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Gates And Railings Along North Boundary Of Royal Naval College --KTC 09:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Can You fix horizont and darken the sky slightly? --Moahim 09:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. Moahim if you want to comment and suggest a fix you leave the photo at /Nomination. (Moahim declined the photo). --C messier 10:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Darkening the sky is not necessary but fixing the geometry can be done easily. --Moahim 18:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition, good colors, good sharpness. What should we want more? -- Spurzem 20:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC) :  Comment Just simple geometry correction --Moahim 05:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC) I don't see your problem. -- Spurzem 19:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cvmontuy 08:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 13:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche_(Augsburg)_-_view_towards_the_three_altars_(HDRI).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Herz-Jesu-Kirche (Augsburg) - view towards the three altars (HDRI --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 16:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment I think you could do easily a perspective correction cropping the bottom. Looks better imo--Moroder 17:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. It will loose the parts of windows in both upper sides and stay "unstable" if cropped. IMHO. --Moahim 09:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree --Moroder 15:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not all architectural photos need perspective correction, depending on what the photoprapher was aiming for. However, the distortion here is too much for me. -- KTC (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is no difference in distortion to the other pictures of the same location, that passed QI without issue. Although it is in the minority of those, looking upward. Cropping and straightening will make it look like the celling and side walls join at a 135° angle.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose May be that there are no better images. But this one is too distorted. -- Spurzem 20:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ich hab eine bearbeitete Version hochgeladen:  . Was haltet ihr davon? Gruss --Nightflyer 22:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --W.carter 13:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)