Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 15 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Treviño - Dordóniz 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dordóniz in Treviño County, Spain --Basotxerri 19:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Too unsharp in the distance. Sorry. --Ermell 08:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
     Comment Thanks for the review! I understand your objection and perhaps the image could be better but on the other hand for me the main object is the village which IMO is sharp enough for a QI. I'd like to hear some other opinions. --Basotxerri 19:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    Agreed.  Support. -- Ikan Kekek 03:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The village and other important elements are satisfactorily sharp. Nothing we can do about a hazy atmosphere.Juliancolton 17:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree; since the foreground appears sharp and colourful, I'm satisfied that the sky is hazy because of atmospherical conditions.--Peulle 19:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 20:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Objekt 3 in der Kellergasse Gedersdorf an der Bundesstraße.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse in Gedersdorf/Niederösterreich. --Manfred Kuzel 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice colors, striking composition, and this one doesn't need perspective correction --Daniel Case 01:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same as Objekt1 - banding stripes on the sky. --A.Savin 21:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek 15:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others.--Peulle 15:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment In this case the banding is also visible in the white front of the house. I really wonder which process in which image processing software could be responsible. Banding is often caused by excessive noise reduction, but here it does not look like this. Perhaps it is a function to compensate for the light falloff of the lens? --Smial 09:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)