Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 02 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Hostal_Centro_Histórico_Regina,_México_D.F.,_México,_2013-10-16,_DD_158.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Historic Center Regina Hostel, Mexico City, Mexico --Poco a poco 17:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Comment There is a diproportion between h and w--Moroder 07:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ New version, better now? Poco a poco 14:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Good quality. --Moroder 16:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural distorsions IMO. The sky at left looks overexposed. I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 23:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support OE is irrelevant imho --Moroder 11:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong perspective distortion (horizontal perspective distortion): Unnatural, it seems overprocesed IMO. Areas of the sky are blown out (As Jebulon)--Lmbuga 13:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective distortion --Denkmalhelfer 18:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support as Moroder.. --Hubertl 22:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2014.09.20.-12-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Wolfspinne-Xerolycosa nemoralis-Weibchen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Xerolycosa nemoralis, Weibchen (female) --Hockei 12:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose no clear subject to background --Denkmalhelfer 18:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 Comment I'm convinced it's not the nature's intention.--Hockei 05:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Subject blurred, too strong shadows -- Alvesgaspar 11:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 Comment It is not a FPC. And there is no strong shadow at all. Maybe I should take a miniature LED-lamp to illuminate the hole in the wood the next time. --Hockei 14:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Poor contrast to the background is known as mimikry. --Hubertl 21:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Nicolás,_Tallinn,_Estonia,_2012-08-11,_DD_17.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination St. Nicholas' Church, Tallinn, Estonia --Poco a poco 10:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Steeple unsharp, with CA --Daniel Case 05:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No reaction, please, let's discuss this one --Poco a poco 20:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 Support Good now. Daniel Case 20:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Neutral No good perspective for me. Overall we see tilted lines. -- Spurzem 11:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC).
  •  Support The tilted lines underline the character of the subject: beeing high. And leads the eye up to the sky in good colour and with beautiful clouds. --ArishG 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Look to the hauses at the right. They don't lead me to the beautiful sky. I only think they will fall in. -- Spurzem 20:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment: you are voting in 2 different directions Poco a poco 10:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The verticals should be rectilinear. --Code 16:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case: Are you still opposing? --Code (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support but only without unnatural distortion. Verticlas not must be rectilinear. --Ralf Roletschek 11:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion is disturbing--Lmbuga 17:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Correcting the distortion would give an absurd impression of the tower. --ArishG 06:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The top of the subject is too unsharp. Alvesgaspar 22:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose While the tilted lines are ok for the tower itself, it's disturbing on the other buildings. --MB-one 11:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others --Livioandronico2013 20:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)