Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 22 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Roaring_Creek_(Pennsylvania)_Edit1.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Roaring Creek in wintertime. Jakec 15:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Insufficient quality: The branches do not show fine details, it is lacking sharpness. --Cccefalon 20:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
    *The trees aren't the point of the image, oftentimes even in FPs the background is not sharp. I can even remove most of the trees entirely if it is so desired. Jakec 22:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp Christian Ferrer 05:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Cerkiew_na_Ćipurze_w_Cetinje_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Court Church. Cetinje, Montenegro. --Halavar 14:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    Bad CA. Mattbuck 23:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline No veo mala calidad, al contrario, esta toma tiene una composicion bien lograda en mi modesta opinion. --Ivan2010 08:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, mattbuck is right --A.Savin 17:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Excessively distracting chromatic aberration. --DAJF 03:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --DAJF 03:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

File:UBC_Haida_House_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Haida House UBC --Xicotencatl 07:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Too much fog for me , sorry Pleclown 12:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
     SupportIt's maybe a bit dark, but I think it's ok. Mattbuck 21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    - I lightened a bit this picture and the one below. The fog is actually the main areason I went there to take these pictures. --Xicotencatl 06:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

 Support --JLPC 08:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --JLPC 08:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:UBC_museum_of_anthropology_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Museum of anthropology UBC --Xicotencatl 07:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Too much fog for me , sorry Pleclown 12:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
     SupportIt's maybe a bit dark, but I think it's ok. Mattbuck 21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice view. Quality OK. I like the foggy mood, it's something new here. --Dirtsc (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --JLPC 08:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good quality to me, and the mist adds rather than detracts. --DAJF 06:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --DAJF 06:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Kościół_Najświętszego_Serca_Pana_Jezusa_w_Czeskim_Cieszynie_1.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination The Parish Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Český Těšín, Czech Republic --Halavar 17:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    Several issues: Noisy and blurred in full resolution; dust spots; tilted. --NorbertNagel 20:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Sebastian Wallroth 14:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Norbert plus CA --Cccefalon 07:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In full size have problems like others --The Photographer 20:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As already mentioned above, the image is tilted, noisy, and dust spots are visible in the sky. --DAJF 06:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --DAJF 02:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Jama Masjid, Uperkot - Mihrab 03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of a mihrab in Jama Masjid, Uperkot Fort, India --Bgag 15:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support --Sebastian Wallroth 14:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bottom seems unsharp to me. --Mattbuck 22:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
     Comment I have imported a new version. --Bgag 16:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    Better. Mattbuck 21:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Better now imo. --JLPC 09:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --JLPC 08:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Tank locomotive 2023.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tank locomotive 2023 --Vitold Muratov 15:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pleclown 12:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed on the right; chromatic aberrations --A.Savin 21:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not too bad but a bit too bright, and CA on window frames – fixable? --Kreuzschnabel 15:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Problems fixed imo. Feel free to reverse. --JLPC 09:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, still no QI to me. Overall too soft and there is kinda colour banding in the sky at the right. --A.Savin 20:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me. --DAJF 03:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --JLPC (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Gran_Pirámide_de_Cholula,_Puebla,_México,_2013-10-12,_DD_17.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Shadow of myself at the Great Pyramid of Cholula, Puebla, Mexico --Poco a poco 17:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Shooting a stair from above is always a difficult situation. But the disturbing shadow and the lack of interesting compositional elements push me to decline the photo, sorry. --Cccefalon 13:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, fine, but obviously the shadow was the central element of the picture rather than a disturbing and not desired factor Poco a poco 16:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, if you don't mind I'd like to discuss it, the quality is IMHO acceptable --Poco a poco 17:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support If the shadow is the main subject. We need more pictures of your shadow --The Photographer 21:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Gauri Wur Sem 11:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Cccefalon --PetrVod 21:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 11:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --A.Savin 23:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)