Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 17 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_0684.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Farmersmarket on a saturday at the Karmelitermarkt, Vienna --Hubertl 21:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 21:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chromatic aberrations. --A.Savin 23:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Fixed --Hubertl 23:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 10:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good rework. -- Smial 11:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC) @Hubertl: Versuch mal, bei solchen Motiven das Weitwinkel nicht für "muß alles draufpassen" zu verwenden, sondern greif dir ein aussagekräftiges Vordergrundmotiv heraus, hier z.B. die Obstkisten beim Stand in der Bildmitte. Und spiele dann mit der Blende, also ruhig auch mal Offenblende beim WW versuchen. Wenn die Bildecken dann unscharf werden, spielt das keine Rolle, hauptsache das zentrale Thema wird scharf.
  •  Support OK now. --A.Savin 13:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Caballero1967 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Cementerio_judío,_Tánger,_Marruecos,_2015-12-11,_DD_30.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Jewish cemetery, Tangier, Morocco --Poco a poco 06:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Yet tilted ccw. And perhaps brightening the darks of the trees? --Cccefalon 07:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is my unnecessary oppose, Jacek. It is good practice here not to override a reviewers request to the author. --Cccefalon 09:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Re:Cccefalon Sorry, I did not notice your comment. --Jacek Halicki 16:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version Poco a poco 19:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, Diego. --Cccefalon 10:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 18:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Kazan_Cathedral_Saint_Petersburg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kazan Cathedral in Saint Petersburg 1905. --Moroder 18:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Badly posterized sky. A pity, as this could have been a wow motif --A.Savin 19:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd like some other opinion --Moroder 17:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Shansov.net 18:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh really? --A.Savin 23:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me --Uoaei1 20:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment 1. Are there stars on the sky or matrix defects? 2. The right side of the cathedral leaning a bit. 3. What mean of 1905? --Florstein 21:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Dead pixels, I suppose --A.Savin 23:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I think so too, but I'd like to hear messir Moroder. --Florstein 10:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Here I am :-). killed a few disturbing pixels, fixed vertical lines on the right and description (thanks for the hint!)--Moroder 16:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. But now the dome is leaninng to the left. :) --Florstein 17:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Need perspective correction...--Livioandronico2013 17:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done I can't do better than this, folks --Moroder 17:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I find it better than good. --Caballero1967 21:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 18:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Eiffel tower (368).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Eiffel Tower in Paris, France --Rijinatwiki 08:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Many chromatic aberrations. The tower is also leaning left a bit --A.Savin 17:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CAs and disturbing branches at the left. Composition could be better, dark area at the right.--XRay 18:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA, tilt. -- Smial 10:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 18:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_08_18_007_Weingut_Kimich_Deidesheim.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Winery Kimich --F. Riedelio 13:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality. --Jacek Halicki 13:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSky overexposed and eating in to neighbouring detail, otherwise good. --Prosthetic Head 16:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed sky --A.Savin 13:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 18:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_Stary_Paczków,_kościół_Wszystkich_Świętych_02.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Church of All Saints in Stary Paczków 1 --Jacek Halicki 00:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 12:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky is nearly completely blown. Please discuss. --C messier 14:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry Jacek but I agree to Cmessier, the sky does not look nice --Michielverbeek 07:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Livioandronico2013 21:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Cloudy sky is ok for me.--Ermell 09:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burnt sky, not fixable. -- Smial 09:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sometimes the sky looks like this. The building is fine. --Palauenc05 15:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 Comment The sky has been faked, and has massive overxposure, but if you think, this is ok for QI then it shall be so. -- Smial 20:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burnt sky, crop is too tight at the top. This is not a QI. --Code 22:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Code --A.Savin 13:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 18:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

File:May2015 Volgograd img06 View from Mamaev Hill.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Volgograd: view from Mamaev Hill --A.Savin 15:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: An unfavourable image section (too much foreground), right edge of the image is out of focus. --F. Riedelio 08:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Sorry please other opinion: it is the view as it is at this point, and where do you see any blurred areas? --A.Savin 14:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @A.Savin: Please see annotations. --F. Riedelio 13:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand your issues very well, but I don't get the problem. --A.Savin 16:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Please see annotations for my preferred cropping. --F. Riedelio 09:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I would say too much sky, but the horizon is at the one third of the image. The composition actually lies at thirds (one sky, one city, one foreground). The lack of sharpness descripted isn't something worth declining (or mentioning). --C messier 15:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support For me is good --Livioandronico2013 21:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Шухрат Саъдиев 13:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall somewhat weak sharpness, blurred details at margins. No double standards, please. -- Smial 18:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I never nominate pictures without looking if they are sharp enough. That you ape my comment is just stupid, however quite your usual level (Deutsche Wikipedia as it is). --A.Savin 19:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly your double standards. q.e.d. ;-) -- Smial 08:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Ps: In other words: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? ;-)
Matthaeus 7:3, wenn schon, denn schon.. ;-) --Hubertl 09:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Smial Once again: where do you see double standards by me? This picture I nominated IS sharp enough! Where did you see me ever nominate or promote pictures below QI standard? Is it not rather your best friend Ralf Roletschek who usually does this? Why then, if you are such a big fan of high-quality standards, do you tolerate it - only because he is your friend, yeah? Let me guess... Double standards? And could you please stop lying? Otherwise, we also may continue discussing on COM:ANU, if you prefer... --A.Savin 11:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
...except for your Moscow metro series? :) This image is sharp enough for an OOC jpeg from a camera with Bayer sensor (which is not sharp enough for my PERSONAL taste) --Shansov.net 13:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You must have confused me with s/o else, I have no "Moscow Metro series" and did just a very few photos in Moscow Metro. --A.Savin 13:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done 16:9 --A.Savin 13:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Smial and F. Riedelio. And of course our utmost best friend Ralf Roletschek. If you cannot accept critical, but well-meaning reviews, this is maybe not the right project for you, A.Savin. --Hubertl 13:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you also have your own opinion, or is it just because Smial said so? --A.Savin 13:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Stop arguing, you can do it on your discussion page. This is not the place for your private conflicts. --Hubertl 13:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
That's surely not your business. --A.Savin 13:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me. --Florstein 21:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 09:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)