Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 29 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Senden,_Schloss_Senden_--_2015_--_01307.jpg edit

 

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 00:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015_Kaplica_Znalezienia_Jezusa_w_Świątyni,_w_Bardzie_05.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination: Chapel of finding Jesus in the Temple, in Bardo 3 --Jacek Halicki 08:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I am in doubt, that the texts and the central drawing are free of any copyright ... Denis Barthel 08:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
      Comment This text is just a plain description of the site which everyone will write like this, if he is able to. Therefore no creative essence. --Hubertl 09:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
      Comment Sorry, I doubt that strongly. Let's discuss! Denis Barthel 08:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Ok for me. --Hubertl 21:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have no problem with copyright. But the white reflection is very disturbing for me. -- Spurzem 08:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 08:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

File:AB_Brentanoschule_Figur.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Aschaffenburg, Schweinheimer Straße 11, Figure (cultural heritage monument) in front of school --KaiBorgeest 20:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Please remove the reddish fringe/CA (see note) --Cccefalon 03:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)   Done--KaiBorgeest 20:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done. The background colour is ugly, but it is not your fault. --Cccefalon 06:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At 3.2 megapixels, the file size is too small (especially considering it is not perfectly sharp). This is a still object next to a traffic intersection which is easy to photograph. From the Guidelines, reviewers may demand higher resolution for such easy to take pictures. Dllu 22:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crop too tight -- Alvesgaspar 20:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 08:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Buldern,_Kleiner_Spieker_--_2015_--_5489.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Kleiner Spieker, Buldern, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Good quality. --Cccefalon 04:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed sky, one note added. --Iifar 05:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
      Comment You are right. I reviewed "Grosser Spieker" but accidently slipped to "Kleiner Spieker" in the editor. I revoke my vote. --Cccefalon 08:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
      Fixed I've darkened the sky. And yes (your note), it's smoke. Please see the other side of the building: File:Dülmen,_Buldern,_Kleiner_Spieker_--_2015_--_5487.jpg. --XRay 15:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
      Comment Left half of the sky is still overexposed. --Iifar 17:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for me. --Hubertl 11:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The essential criteria (sharpness, resolution, CA removal...) are met. Nevertheless, I see two areas for improvement: (1) Lighting - it must have been a dull gray day with light coming mainly from the front. Therefore you get either the building too dark, or the sky blown white. Would it be possible to redo the picture another day & time with the light coming from the back, or at least from the side? (2) Perspective correction - Although technically correct, a 100% perspective correction looks unnatural, suggesting that the base of the building is smaller than the top part. I would appreciate if the author could improve on these two points and then certainly support a QI promotion. --Hendric Stattmann 14:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a good lighting. This is the typical situation where there is little to do owing to the conditions. Only HDR, for the fans. Alvesgaspar 20:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 08:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Belmond_Grand_Hotel_Europe_Saint_Petersburg_main_facade.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Main facade Grand Hotel Europe in Saint Petersburg 1905. --Moroder 00:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline

  Oppose Sorry, but this cylindrical (?) perpective isn't ok for QI, I think. Try rectilinear. Additionally the crop at the bottom is unfortunate. --Code 04:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  •   Support IMO an impressive composition in good quality. --Palauenc05 17:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

      Comment   Done Uploaded a new version, Hope Paulauenc05 will not be disappointed and withdraw his support. Thanks Code for the suggestions --Moroder 18:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better now. --Code 18:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
      Comment Thanks for your care, it's fine with me. However I appreciated the first composition, too. --Palauenc05 21:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree Sorry, that's too much distortion. Such a wide angle panorama can not have a linear projection without dramatic perspective issues and other technical flaws. . --Smial 11:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial plus upper left crop is too tight. --Iifar 13:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I reluctantly vote against this picture. It's a HUGE challenge to get this wide building into one picture without causing bad distortion etc. and I don't know how I could do it better. Would it be possible to make a series of rectilinear shots from several locations along the facade and stitch them linearly? In the current state, there is too much distortion on the left side and a lack of sharpness (surely due to the usage of an ultra wide or fisheye lens). --Hendric Stattmann 14:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    •   Comment Thanks for your comment. This is a stitched foto made out of 4 single shots not with a fisheye but with a Nikkor 24/70 mm zoom. I use hugin and I don't know really how to handle better perspective distortions. Cheers --Moroder 19:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Linear stitching with moving camera location has other problems. Works quite well with flat objects, but needs lots of shots depending on the "depth" of the scene with 3D objects. -- Smial 22:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Verde78 10:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • {{o}} I´m very sorry, a vote from someone, who has registered himself just one hour ago, but finding directly this honeypot, seems a bit strange to me. My vote is just to neutralize this vote. --Hubertl 12:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I must have some secret supporters, Hubertl. ;-)) --Moroder 12:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
      •   Comment Now, talking seriously the support vote of @Verde78 is not valid so I just delete it. --Moroder 17:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have just started to use hugin and have been thinking about this photograph. Would extending the sides with perhaps 2 more pictures per side help to make the center (the building) less distorted? -- RaboKarbakian 05:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 08:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)