Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 04 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Birzhevoy_Lane_SPB_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Birzhevoy Lane in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 18:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment The right crop is not very lucky. It needs also a correction of height/width proportion --Moroder 07:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I don't understand your claims: it's a matter of individual perception. And maybe I wasn't very lucky that day. And what? -- Florstein 09:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment You were lucky that day because the light was good. It's a matter of composition which obviously depends a lot from the individual taste. The second point is the proportion between height and width of the image therefore the cars look flat. You didn't neet to put it ot discussion, I just made a comment and a suggestion to improve the image according to my opinion --Moroder 15:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, don't be offended to me. I just found your first comment a little bit abstract. In any case, if a picture was unassessed too long time, it's a bad picture. Good light was on other side. --Florstein 16:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not at all offended. On the contrary I apologize for not being clear. I'll support the nomination if the suggested changes are made. That's all, cheers --Moroder 16:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 20:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Mendeleevskaya_Line_SPB_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mendeleevskaya Line of Vasilievsky Island in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 18:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Looks like you dropped your camera: too much street and the top left of the building is missing. A bottom crop of too much street would help imo --Moroder 07:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It was important to me to show the asphalt. Are there any complaints about quality? --Florstein 09:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    • For me it is only a matter of composition: I don't understand why the asphalt is more important than the top of the building!? --Moroder 15:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like the composition and lighting but image quality is on the poor side, despite the agressive sharpening (visible in the large white fringings). I wonder if it can be improved. Alvesgaspar 12:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 20:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Aussicht vom Alten Schloss Baden-Baden.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View from ther Old Castle Baden-Baden, Southern Germany --Harke 08:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Nice, but it's tilted CCW, can you fix it? --Kadellar 15:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks--Harke 11:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Not perfect yet, but much better, thanks! btw, I just saw CA along the edge of the tower at left, can you fix that too please? --Kadellar 20:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thank you for the review, OK now?
    Better, thanks. --Kadellar 21:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the composition and light contrats. Alvesgaspar 12:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Агава в Сочи.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Agave americana in Sochi --SKas 08:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Insufficient quality. Nice colour and light but crop too tight at the bottom. --Moroder 15:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ New version --SKas 18:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better now --Moroder 12:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 19:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 20:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Marientormauer, Nürnberg June 2015-4807.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Details of the Marientor-Wall, seen from the old city. Nuremberg, Bavaria. --Hubertl 17:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Shame about the shadow, but good quality.--Famberhorst 18:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose
    The description tells what is displayd but that is not a QI image for me. I see just a huge shadow.
    --Ermell 22:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment ✓  Shadows brightened. Please have another look, Ermell. --Hubertl 08:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Sill not very much to see but in good quality.--Ermell 17:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow is too dominant and distracts the attention of the viewer, --Dirtsc 22:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Is there anything hidden? Its normal, to have shadows and brightness, Dirtsc, even in life. --Hubertl 06:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support der Schatten stört mich nicht. --Ralf Roletschek 07:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Unbalanced light conditions. --Iifar 08:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan 17:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per opposers.--Jebulon 18:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Unusual lighting but good anyway. Alvesgaspar 10:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 20:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Nictea July 2015-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A Snow Owl in Antwerp Zoo -- Alvesgaspar 08:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support How cute! Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not at all sharp. Charlesjsharp 16:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Eyes are sharp.QI for me.--Ermell 23:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose True, Ermell, but the subject that draws the attention here is rather the peak and it is just unsharp, this is not a QI to me, sorry Poco a poco 20:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree. Motion blur because the bird is moving its beak.--Ermell 07:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can tolerate the motion blur; but the one eye obscured is very disturbing, unfortunately. Jkadavoor 12:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 20:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Swan September 2015-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A swan in Hyde Park, LOndon -- Alvesgaspar 08:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose not sharp enough. Charlesjsharp 16:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC) --
  •  Comment I disagree. Other opinions? Alvesgaspar 22:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Should be centered.--Ermell 23:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think so, the composition would be boring. Alvesgaspar 09:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice --Moroder 18:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support For me is sharp enough Livioandronico2013 19:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with sharpness issue, neck and legs are problematic. Even at not so big resolution. --PetarM 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  weak support --Σπάρτακος 07:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 20:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Trier,_Hohe_Domkirche_St._Peter_--_2015_--_6143.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral of St. Peter, Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany --XRay 03:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Bold perspective, but good quality.--Famberhorst 05:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry. But I disagree. The cathedral is too distorted. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 11:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Google sagt uns, daß es dort sehr beengt zugeht. Also sind Verzeichnungen und stürzende Linien nicht vermeidbar. Allerdings ist etwas Spielraum, die Kamera nach unten zu kippen. --Ralf Roletschek 07:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnecessary distortion.--Jebulon 18:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)