Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 24 2019

Consensual review edit

File:Pancha_Ratna_Shiva_Temple,_Rajshahi.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Upper side of Pancha Ratna Shiva Temple. --RockyMasum 19:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. --Steindy 21:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Steindy: Please always give specific feedback, when declining a nomination. --MB-one 16:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • With pleasure! The sky is clear and sharp, the building is dark, out of focus and muddy. --Steindy 22:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Steindy --Michielverbeek 06:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Stepro 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Bara_Anhik_Mandir_and_Chhota_Govinda_Mandir.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bara Anhik Mandir and Chhota Govinda Mandir. --RockyMasum 15:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 05:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks oversaturated to me --Podzemnik 02:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective lean. Unfixable.--Peulle 07:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Stepro 16:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Stillfried_Kellergasse_Kirchweg_10.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse „Kirchweg“ in Stillfried (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Not very sharp, object too dark and sky too bright in my view. --Imehling 15:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
      Done
    Thank you for review. New version Ö.K.? --Manfred Kuzel 05:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, better now. --Imehling 07:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but there are horizontal stripes in the sky. Looks like a sensor issue.--Peulle 07:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle -- DerFussi 12:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Stepro 16:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Kirche_Arbing.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Pfarrkirche Arbing (Oberösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Blende 22 ist ungünstig für die Schärfe und macht den Staub auf dem Sensor sichtbar. Da ist noch einges wegzuklonen. --Ermell 07:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
      Comment: Sorry, ich finde nichts, was ich da wegklonen könnte. --Manfred Kuzel 08:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    Die Staubflecken im Himmel. --Ermell 06:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
      Done
    Danke für den Hinweis. Neue Version hochgeladen. --Manfred Kuzel 04:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Bei der alten Version war der Beschnitt besser. Auch stimmen die Vertikalen nicht und Flecken sind immer noch zu sehnen. --Ermell 09:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
      Done
    Noch einmal überarbeitet. --Manfred Kuzel 10:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There's that weird regular pattern in the sky again. --Smial 08:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    Warum sehe ich außer dem Kondensstreifen eines Flugzeuges in der linken Bildhälfte absolut keine Fehler am Himmel ??? --Manfred Kuzel 04:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I sense the uploader will want to discuss this further, but there are definitely striations in the sky, it looks like the kind of stripes you get when putting fiberglass wallpaper on a wall. Also, does this image seem a bit small to you? The cars are a bit disturbing too, the way they're cropped.--Peulle 07:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ist mir zu stark verzerrt. --Ralf Roletschek 10:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose pattern in the sky. Can see it easily on my laptop and at home on my other screens. -- DerFussi 12:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Stepro 16:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Wegweiser_in_Putgarten_zum_Leuchtturm_20181030.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Guide sign to Cape Arkona. --PantheraLeo1359531 15:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Imehling 16:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Good quality but the cropped sign at the bottom-right lessened the overall beauty. --Muntashir.islam 18:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sending to CR since it's been a week without a decision; I think the crop should be made since the sign on the right is disturbing.--Peulle 07:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Cropped version uploaded. --PantheraLeo1359531 11:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 10:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Stepro 17:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Raschala_Kellergasse_Pinkelstein_29.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse „Pinkelstein“ in Raschala (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry Manfred, the photo has lens flares and I am afraid that these can not be repaired. --Steindy 12:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Steindy.--Peulle 07:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Stepro 17:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Raschala_Kellergasse_Pinkelstein_28.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse „Pinkelstein“ in Raschala (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry Manfred, the photo has lens flares and moiree and I am afraid that these can not be repaired. --Steindy 12:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Steindy.--Peulle 07:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Stepro 17:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Raschala_Kellergasse_Pinkelstein_27.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse „Pinkelstein“ in Raschala (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry Manfred, the photo has lens flares and moiree and I am afraid that these can not be repaired. --Steindy 12:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Maybe the issues can be fixed, but as it is, it's not a QI.--Peulle 07:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Stepro 17:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Finnische_Seemannskirche_Hamburg-Neustadt_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Finnish Seafarers Church in Hamburg --Dirtsc 07:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Geometric correction seems wrong, sorry. --Ichwarsnur 17:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'd like to see more opinions on the perspective correction. Maybe someone can be more specific about the problems than "seems wrong". ;-) Greetings --Dirtsc 14:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • weak   Support IMO the verticals are right, but I cannot deny it looks a bit deformed (barrel distortion?) --Michielverbeek 19:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too strong distorted --Ralf Roletschek 10:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Stepro 17:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Raschala_Kellergasse_Pinkelstein_c.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Kellergasse „Pinkelstein“ in Raschala (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Flares and ghosts still acceptable IMO. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Too many lens flares and the ususal pattern from a probably faulty sensor. --Tsungam 07:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Tsungam.--Peulle 07:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Stepro 17:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Alise-Sainte-Reine_Replica_Roman_milestone_(miliarium).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Alise-Sainte-Reine Replica Roman milestone (miliarium).--Pierre André Leclercq 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 09:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but this is only 4MPX and still not really sharp. For such an easy-to-take picture I'd expect it to be sharper --Podzemnik 02:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Seems downsized and still not very sharp, especially on the right. Additionally, the composition is lacking as the column is not centered.--Peulle 08:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done Improvement of the sharpness and refocusing of the column. Thank you for your advice.--Pierre André Leclercq 10:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support gut genug für QI. --Ralf Roletschek 08:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, much better --Axel Tschentscher 08:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Stepro 17:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Alise-Sainte-Reine_panorama_du_site_d'Alésia_(3).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Alise-Sainte-Reine panorama of the old site of Alésia (Fr).--Pierre André Leclercq 09:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 09:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

*  Oppose Until dust spot from the sky is removed --Podzemnik 02:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC) Thanks, --Podzemnik 02:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

    • @Podzemnik: did you mean to make this a support? I see no symbol. Seven Pandas 22:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Removed dusting in the sky. Thank you for your opinion.--Pierre André Leclercq 10:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 08:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Stepro 17:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:2019_Kościół_św._Jadwigi_w_Przedborowej_4.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Saint Hedwig church in Przedborowa 2 --Jacek Halicki 23:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    The power pole on the left is a bit disturbing. --TWH 23:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose Insufficient quality. --TWH 23:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    I disagree --Jacek Halicki 09:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
      Support I do not understand the criticism. The photo is of very good quality. --Steindy 12:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
      SupportGood quality for me. Tournasol7 05:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Needs some CCW rotation and probably somewhat less perspective correction. --Smial 08:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok,   Support. ;-) --Smial 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Stepro 17:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Vista_de_Quito_desde_El_Panecillo,_Ecuador,_2015-07-22,_DD_30-32_PAN.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination View of Quito from El Panecillo, Ecuador --Poco a poco 07:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Oppose Nice view, but most of the city is out of focus. --Domob 18:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    Doesn't actually look bad to me for a shot of a far landscape, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 15:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The buildings in the right quarter (or third) of the picture all seem to tilt slightly outwards. The exposure is a little too bright. Both should be fixed if possible. The picture is not pixel sharp in all places, but in regard to the size and resolution of the photo, I consider this to be acceptable. --Smial 10:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
      Comment   New version uploaded to address those issues you mentioned, Smial Poco a poco 21:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    •   Support much better in every respect now. thx. --Smial 13:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 07:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Stepro 17:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)