Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 19 2013

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Columna_de_la_Victoria_de_la_Guerra_de_la_Independencia,_Tallinn,_Estonia,_2012-08-05,_DD_02.JPG[edit]

File:Almpferd.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Horse eating grass in the Bavarian Alps --Avarim 19:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support --Rjcastillo 20:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree. title and description. This should include taxa naming for animals (See Commons:Language policy) --Moroder 20:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    You're right Moroder, but only it's a horse (Equus caballus) and a good picture IMO  Support--Lmbuga 21:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Name added in description --Avarim 05:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)  Support Now, but I'd suggest also to put the name of the breed or horse type (Haflinger?) in the description + geotag. Thanks --Moroder 08:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Grosmont railway station MMB 04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Grosmont railway station. Mattbuck 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Magenta cast (see clouds) --Kreuzschnabel 15:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I could not find the right white balance then or now. If you want to decline do so, but I'd ask that whoever does have a go at fixing the colours themselves, because I honestly can't figure out how. Mattbuck 19:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Get RawTherapee. It’s more than a RAW developer, it also handles JPEG files well. – New version uploaded, I put this into CR to get some more opinions since I won’t vote myself. --Kreuzschnabel 10:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Kreuzschnabel is right,  Support this version --Christian Ferrer 19:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Newest version is of sufficient good quality. --High Contrast 09:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Columna_de_la_Victoria_de_la_Guerra_de_la_Independencia,_Tallinn,_Estonia,_2012-08-05,_DD_08.JPG[edit]

File:Oakleigh Park railway station MMB 08.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Oakleigh Park railway station. Mattbuck 07:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline I know that QIC is not about encyclopedical usefulness, but this one seems at least a borderline case of COM:SCOPE, or can you explain the meaning of this shot? --A.Savin 16:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    I just liked the colours of the bench. Mattbuck 21:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    Is this really a valid explanation why the shot falls within COM:SCOPE? Heuschrecke 10:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose I agree with Heuschrecke, I can't see the content of the image. If it should have been the structure, then it's lacking DOF. --Dirtsc 16:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Images which are "not in scope" should be deleted. But I cannot find a valid reason for deletion, this image could illustrate a lemma like de:Lochplatte (punched plate). --Smial 11:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This image would not be usable very good for the article Lochplatte due to its angle to the plate itself. So, to be honest, I doubt this image's scope an I do no support it here. --null 03:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
This image would not be usable very good for the article Lochplatte due to its angle to the plate itself. So, to be honest, I doubt this image's scope an I do no support it here. --null 03:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 21:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Neos_Marmaras_Bay_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The bay of Neos Marmaras, Greece --Heuschrecke 19:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry, See notes and oversaturated IMO (less than the other picture)--Lmbuga 00:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
     Comment I can say something good of the picture: It's sharp--Lmbuga 01:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks, I redeveloped the picture, maybe you'll like it more now. Heuschrecke 23:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Sorry, it is much better but still oversaturated IMO: see the halo of the notes. Discuss: Others users can think, please--Lmbuga 09:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for noting halos, I removed them. I find saturation reasonable, let's see what others think. Heuschrecke 10:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Christian Ferrer 11:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated but can be corrected --Archaeodontosaurus 13:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Sorry, oversaturated (I can't promove a image if the water of the sea is unnatural, unnatural IMO). Areas with CAs and areas with overexposition (concrete blocks of foreground), sorry--Lmbuga 19:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yet another version updated. Heuschrecke 22:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good now. Bravo for the correction.--Archaeodontosaurus 15:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Thanks for working the photos. Better, but not clear QI IMO. I think my reasons are not enough to vote against: I'm sure I've promoted images that are worse than this. Sorry, it's a good picture, but I don't like it (now this is only a personal taste)--Lmbuga 01:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)