Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 08 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:2015-10-24_Karmelitermarket_on_saturday,_Vienna_0696.jpg

[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 07:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014_03_14_253_San_Salvador_Mallorca.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Monastery of San Salvador --F. Riedelio 08:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Posterization in the sky --Berthold Werner 09:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done
      New version with posterization decrease uploaded. --F. Riedelio 15:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Berthold Werner 08:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_03_14_256_San_Salvador_Mallorca.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stone cross at Sant Salvador --F. Riedelio 08:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose too noisy --A.Savin 14:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done
      New Version with noise decrease uploaded. --F. Riedelio 12:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks okay now --A.Savin 12:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 18:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:003_2015_09_26_Kulturdenkmaeler_Deidesheim.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wayside shrine (total view) --F. Riedelio 15:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support I'm afraid it's a bit tilted CW, otherwise QI for me--Moroder 18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done
      Updated with perspective correction. --F. Riedelio 13:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 14:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2010 04 01 001 The Lamentation window (Cologne Cathedral).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Lamentation window --F. Riedelio 13:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Yet distorted: The window bars of a frontal taken photo should be parallel. --Cccefalon 14:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Please rename your file from "unbenannt" to a meaningful name. --XRay 16:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      ✓ Done
      •  Comment File renamed and distortion improved. --F. Riedelio 13:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO too unsharp at the top and the dark parts are too noisy. --XRay 11:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 18:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Baden-Baden 10-2015 img59 Casino.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Baden-Baden: interior of the Casino --A.Savin 13:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: IMHO not sharp enough. --F. Riedelio 15:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please discuss: it is sufficient for a QI and I saw pictures with much worse quality be promoted. No double standards please... --A.Savin 16:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The lens is not known for very high image quality used wide open and should be used stopped down to f/8 or even f/11 for best results. The image seems also to be somewhat blurred by noise reduction. Use of a tripod and ISO 200 is recommended if taking an image of non moving subjects in low light. If this would be a sports photo or stage photo or other action photography, it would be supported by me. But it is not. -- Smial 10:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support good image, quality ok Christian Ferrer 17:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Normal quality. --Florstein 18:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 07:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Norwegen-Lebesby-P1270752.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Supermarket with cafe in the town of Lebesby in Finnmark in Northern Norway --Ermell 09:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Insufficient quality: Background (sky and forest) to dull (pale) --F. Riedelio 13:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the darkened background better than the previous one. Noise reduction and white balance (clouds are grey) are IMHO not required. --F. Riedelio 15:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment The image needs denoise and maybe a WB correction, but the dull background isn't IMHO a reason for decline, and it's not either too dull. Please discuss. --C messier 16:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @F. Riedelio: do you oppose or do you support? --Christian Ferrer 17:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Revised. Thanks for you effords.--Ermell 14:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 17:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, poor composition IMO (Almost the left half of the photo is unnecesary). Too much noise reduction IMO--Lmbuga 16:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 11:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)