Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 26 2016

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review[edit]

File:Lokschuppen-Bamberg-3139404.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Old engine shed in Bamberg --Ermell 07:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Both sides are leaning in Poco a poco 08:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good colours and light, though.--Peulle 12:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Poco a poco: ✓ Done
      Fixed. Thanks for the reviews--Ermell 13:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Good now, btw Peulle, it was a comment, asking Ermell to improve it, not an oppose. Poco a poco 17:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Poco a poco 17:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Mumbai 03-2016 32 monument to Swami Vivekananda.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mumbai: monument to Swami Vivekananda --A.Savin 22:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Bgag 23:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The dark statue disappears in the dark background of leafs. Therefore no QI for me. But please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Dear Herr Spurzem, could you please elaborate which QI criterion this picture does not meet, from your point of view? Of course, it is easy to oppose my nomination just because I very recently opposed one of yours... But at least I provided a reason in accordance with a certain quality criterion as per COM:IG. Don't you find that such a behaviour is simply unbecoming of an older gentleman? Oh, btw maybe this is also useful for you to read: en:wikt:leaf#Noun. Dankeschön --A.Savin 15:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality IMHO. --Basotxerri 18:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for Spurzem. "The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed." -- Smial 07:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
And yet another personally motivated vote here. There are no distracting objects in the picture; it is only natural that a statue is just in front of a tree. More ugly is the fence in the foreground, but it is inevitable. The picture is sharp enough and there are no under-/overexposed areas. What a fucking kindergarten here. --A.Savin 09:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The image shows less noise, but similar (low) sharpness with less resolution than File:Reliefs_by_A_Felici_Palazzo_Cavalli_Franchetti_Venice_5.JPG, which you declined with the words "A sculpture will not runaway and may be focused more carefully, so I may request similar quality I apply myself for sculptures... --A.Savin 20:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)"(oldid 193392341). Double standards again? -- Smial 13:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I actually thought you voted "as for Spurzem", and even Herr Spurzem said nothing about sharpness. The sharpness in this image, in fact, is sufficient as the essential parts of composition are in focus. Will you allege me of "double standards" every time I vote in oppose anywhere? "Getret'ner Quark wird breit, nicht stark" und so... Not only your terrible English is every time a problem, no, any discussion with you is just... yes, stupid. --A.Savin 13:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry guys, but this is - beyond any quarrels and personal issues here - a QI. --Hubertl 06:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's tilted to the right. --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment As for all recent uploads of Alexander, I think there is a bit too much saturation, and here also a bit too much contrast. A decrease of those both levels would help to make this image less busy and to highlight the main subject IMO. --Christian Ferrer 08:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI. --Milseburg 10:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 13:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)