Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 26 2014

Consensual review edit

File:A_View_of_Uetersen_Rosarium_HP_16622_edit.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A view of the Uetersen Rosarium. --Alchemist-hp 22:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose I am very sorry that this cannot be a QI: The foreground, which is representing the main compositorial idea, is out of focus (not fixable). A fixable error would have been, that the photo is tilted (check background structures). --Cccefalon 08:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    The "main" is the background for me, not the slightly unsharp foreground! And the background isn't tilted, because it is a slightly perspektive view (a 100% centered perspektive wasn't possibly). --Alchemist-hp 08:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support. Good composition, good colours, main object sharp and the others sharp enough. I see no lack. QI for me. -- Spurzem 15:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Spurzem --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Slight oversharpening, but ok for me. --Smial 09:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Even if it is the second time this evening: Per Smial --DKrieger 20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Emile_robin_1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The lifeboat Emile Robin in Hvide Sande --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • It is too dark IMO, could you brighten it up a bit? Consider increasing the contrast. -- Slaunger 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
      Done Villy Fink Isaksen 18:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC).
    Villy Fink Isaksen: Hmmm... That was a very subtle lightening up. I can hardly see the difference:) Not sure it helped enough, sorry. Another thing, which I just noticed now: Please crop a bit to the right to get rid of the partially visible stone and car. -- Slaunger 05:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
      Done New cropped and more light Villy Fink Isaksen 14:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    The new version had problems with noise in the shadow-lifted parts. Since then Villy and I have communicated forth and back, and I have demonstrated how I believe the image could be improved in a Lightroom workflow. Villy has now uploaded my edit. But now I am not impartial any longer, so I think we should let an uninvolved party review the new edit. -- Slaunger 10:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  Support ok IMO --Christian Ferrer 05:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  Support QI for me --DKrieger 20:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  Support -- Spurzem 15:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 04:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

File:13-05-24-wien-RalfR-136.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination statue of Heracles at Hofburg Wien, Austria --Ralf Roletschek 14:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Name of the file and description in the file page are not good (as usual), but the picture itself is not a technical QI neither. The cropped roof of the car (?) is a no go, some parts are overexposed, the picture is tilted and needs a serious perspective correction.--Jebulon 15:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment. An unrealistic modification of perspective would destroy the image. Pleas discuss. -- Spurzem 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    Again and again, you don't vote for a picture, but in order to make a point against the guidelines. That's unacceptable. Please stop this.--Jebulon 19:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry Spurzem but for me Jebulon have right. Especially in this case, no offense to Ralf Roletschek --Livioandronico2013 19:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Jebulon. And: DFTT. --Cccefalon 06:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The part of the car, description arent problems. but i dont distort my photos. and the name is absoluteley unimportant. --Ralf Roletschek 10:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
So, if nothing is a problem, or/and nothing important, tag your pics with the QI seal by yourself...--Jebulon 16:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support I see no lack against QI -- Spurzem 12:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Essentially per Jebulon, although I do not have an issue with the file name. The file is not misleading and its main purpose is to serve as a unique identifier. -- Slaunger 15:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Of course.--Jebulon 16:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Tilting it 3° to the left will make it look straigtER and the car's roof is out of the way. Will be QI for me then.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 18:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, colour channel clipping in essential areas, tilt, perspective. Too many faults. -- Smial 23:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Info new version --Ralf Roletschek 09:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Cccefalon 04:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Derzhavinsky_Lane_SPB_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Derzhavinsky Lane in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 18:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose Sorry, IMO DoF too small.--XRay 18:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support good --Christian Ferrer 17:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --JLPC 17:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok. -- Smial 14:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 04:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Benediktinerabtei Seckau, Äußerer Klosterhof 2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Seckau Abbey courtyard, Seckau, Styria, Austria. --Dnalor 01 14:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Insufficient quality, noise --A.Savin 10:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I disagree on that one. --Dnalor 01 11:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
      Oppose I agree with A.Savin --Uoaei1 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment A new, corrected version uploaded. --Dnalor 01 18:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment 1600 ISO - it was my mistake, look at my comment and info on my user disc page ... --Dnalor 01 10:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support New version seems okay. --Steindy 21:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The new version is overprocessed, resulting in a loss of details and sharpness (e.g. the hands of the watch and the tiles). The shadows under the arches are bearing artefacts. Still, there is too much magenta under the roof hood of the tower. --Cccefalon 06:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Cccefalon 04:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Labuan_Malaysia_Airport-03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Labuan, Malaysia: Front view of Labuan Airport --Cccefalon 07:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion The roof is cut off on the right side. --Steindy 15:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    So what? Will you decline all buildings which are not 100% visible? --Cccefalon 16:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support QI. --P e z i 21:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Florstein 19:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 04:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Bognor Regis MMB 01 Aldwick Beach.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Aldwick beach. Mattbuck 13:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Lewis Hulbert 13:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. I think the beach is too dark, and there is a big blob in the sky. Dont know if it is dirt or glare from the sun. Lets discuss. --Slaunger 14:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't notice the glare. --Lewis Hulbert 12:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lens glare on the right. --MB-one 22:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Stiftskirche_Göttweig_Hochaltar_01.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination High altar of Göttweig Abbey Church, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 13:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   OpposeBad CA at the stained glass, not sharp enough. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
      Info I sharpened this image. Regarding CAs: for me there are just colorful reflections, but not CAs. I aks for more opinions and move it to discussion --Uoaei1 16:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Mattbuck. --P e z i 21:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support. I don't agree with Mattbuck and Pezi for I see no CAs. What you criticize are reflections of colored glass. -- Spurzem 13:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. Not sharp enough, sorry.--Jebulon 16:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Cccefalon 04:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Face_of_ogre.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Face of ogre --Livioandronico2013 20:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Not in focus. --Mattbuck 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Other opinions please --Livioandronico2013 07:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Focus point is not perfect, but there is stil enough detail. --MB-one 01:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 18:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Somewhat low DOF, but acceptable. -- Smial 22:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 04:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Kimanis_Sabah_Kimanis-Maritim-Traffic-Monitoring-Station-03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Kimanis, Sabah: Lighthouse and control tower of Kimanis Maritim Traffic Monitoring Station --Cccefalon 16:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Wire spoils it. --Mattbuck 23:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, a wire itself is not a reason for decline. especialle here it is not only a wire but also a pole and a bird on the wire. Do we have a new policy to decline every image with a visible wire? --Cccefalon 05:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Christian Ferrer 07:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico talk 10:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Cccefalon 03:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Valtice (Feldsberg) - Kostel Nanebevzetí Panny Marie.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Valtice (Feldsberg) - Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary --Pudelek 09:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough for this rather low resolution --Uoaei1 06:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    In my opinion is enough sharp --Pudelek 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support. Good photo, sharp enough. -- Spurzem 10:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sharp enough for QI, indeed. More disturbing are the redlink categories. Why introducing a category when not linking to an appropriate superior category? --Cccefalon 17:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC) I will support, when the redlinks are removed or linked to a higher category. --Cccefalon 19:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Christian Ferrer 07:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

*  Oppose Excellent photographical QI, but exactly per Cccefalon. I notice that categorization work is more and more careless in QIC. It is a bad thing we should fight against. Please notice that we have a guideline (criterion 3) which is our common rule.--Jebulon 16:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Jebulon, Cccefalon, one of the category links of the file is perfectly correct, and should be enough to respect the guideline. Do you ask to delete the red links? --Christian Ferrer 05:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I asked for a correct categorization. I also cannot understand, why a regular commoner who is with WikiCommons since years and who also is familiar with the topic of his images, should not be capable to connect a new category to a superior category. as Pudelek introduced the two new categories, he made a statement, that he thinks it is desirable to have those two categories to describe the image. Deleting the redlinks now is IMHO just a stupid bypass. What the hell is so difficult to find a superior category for "Maria column in Valtice"? And - given that "Náměstí Svobody (Valtice)" is not already in another writing an OVERCAT for "Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (Valtice)" - what is so difficult to find a superior category for a village or a town? Come on Christian, pointing out that one category is enough, is just a metadiscussion. --Cccefalon 06:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I added Category:Maria columns in Czech Republic as top category. removed my non-topical interjection. --Cccefalon 15:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC) --Cccefalon 09:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support now, opposition striked. Categorization is now very good.--Jebulon 11:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support after resolving the redlink situation, the photographic quality is good for QI. --Cccefalon 15:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 15:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)double vote not eligible. And the date of this unnecessary vote means that the promotion is delayed another two days. --Cccefalon 18:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)