Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 03 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Phoenicurus_ochruros_-_Black_Redstart,_Adana_2016-11-25_01-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Black Redstart (Phoenicurus ochruros) Adana - Turkey. --Zcebeci 05:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Too bad the tail is blurred, but still good quality, overall. -- Ikan Kekek 06:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm surprised @A.Savin: hasn't commented on this image. Charlesjsharp 15:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Hi Charlesjsharp, what should I comment on this image, in your opinion? --A.Savin 06:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Well this image does not appear to be a sharp as my paradise flycatcher and would be a small image if it was cropped to show the bird. So I wondered why you didn't oppose it, that's all. Not that you have to of course! Charlesjsharp 12:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
        •  Question - You're opposing your own nomination? -- Ikan Kekek 22:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
          • nope! Charlesjsharp 22:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
            • Who used the "Oppose" template and changed "Promote" to "Discuss"? -- Ikan Kekek 05:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main object has rather low resolution, not fixable. Denoising seems to be impossible because it would destroy still more detail. Badly processed: If cloning out disturbing background elements do not fill the area with fixed solid color, use the noise pattern of the natural background instead. -- Smial 09:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Charlesjsharp, are you sure you didn't sabotage your own nomination by voting against it? It sure looks like you did. -- Ikan Kekek 11:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 10:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

File:CapeTown CityHall.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Cape Town City Hall (built 1905) -- Martinvl 17:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Rabax63 20:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, needs better development, as there are chromatic aberrations --A.Savin 02:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice view but for the CAs, it's a busy pic so you might have some hunting to do. --W.carter 12:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice and good quality. CAs are negligible. -- Spurzem 08:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 16:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of the many CAs, not only in the lower part (especially in the corners) but also on the buildings. --Llez 12:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support as per Spurzem. --Yann 21:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't care that much about the slight chromatic aberration. What I don't like is the foreground, which is too soft and lacking detail. Alvesgaspar 18:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Not perfect but nice. --PetarM 16:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some CAs, per W.carter, sorry -- George Chernilevsky 18:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fvalue11, why? Main object sharp, but foreground not sharp enough --Michielverbeek 06:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good picture, but not QI IMO, per others--Lmbuga 16:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per other supporters --Martin Falbisoner 06:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --A.Savin 10:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)