Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 06 2014

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:2013-11-01_Triton_und_Nymphe-Volksgarten_Viktor_Tilgner_6045-Bearbeitet.jpg

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination For me its a really special motive, I will work on a new version... Thanks for your critics!--Hubertl 02:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Austria vs. Russia 20141115 (098).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Herbert Prohaska, former player and manager of the (Austrian national football Team, as TV-commentator for ORF. --Steindy 23:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 00:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, strong noise and chromatic noise, Cyan CAs (collar, see note), inappropriate expression for me (IMO), eyes are not perfect--Lmbuga 01:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga --LivioAndronico talk 16:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support As I said, its ok and QI, related to these circumstances.--Hubertl 20:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Just one vote, please -- Alvesgaspar 11:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lmbuga --P e z i 10:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose While it’s nice in preview, and (I assume) shows ironically a typical expression (though not the most fortunate one), in full view the flaws get too obvious. DoF is too shallow, and the pic looks a bit "smeared", like heavy de-noising and re-sharpening, there’s something unnatural to it making it look a bit like a painting. --Kreuzschnabel 20:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   -- George Chernilevsky 21:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Dodge_RAM_in_Isla_Margarita.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Dodge RAM in Isla Margarita --The Photographer 11:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support QI - Bahnfrend 12:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Very disturbing shadows and bad perspective. Sorry. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 15:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I'll support if overexposed areas in background are corrected.--Jebulon 13:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Livioandronico2013 14:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

File:CoA_of_Pope_Clement_XI_on_Obelisk_of_Pantheon_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: CoA of Pope Clement XI on Obelisk of Pantheon.jpg --Livioandronico2013 21:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Review  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose The crop is too tight at the bottom, I think. --Code 06:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    I am wondering about your vote, but let us discuss. --Steindy 14:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support for me too it is QI.--Hubertl 13:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop below, because too much space above. Bad composition.--Jebulon 21:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Livioandronico2013 14:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

File:CoA_of_Pope_Clement_XI_on_Obelisk_of_Pantheon.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination CoA of Pope Clement XI on Obelisk of Pantheon --Livioandronico2013 21:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion A little bit dark and I'm not sure whether the pigeon makes the picture worse or better but I think the quality is overall sufficient for QI. --Code 06:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not as sharp and contrasty as the other photo. In addition, the pigeon interferes me. --Steindy 14:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  •  Comment The pigeon at the top is fine, but at the right is cut. Yann 18:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yann now? Thanks --Livioandronico2013 20:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 21:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support weak pro, but ok.--Hubertl 22:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support The sharpness of the tiara is so-so, but per Hubertl.--Jebulon 13:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 14:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Roofs and towers of Alhambra from Generalife, Granada, Spain.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Roofs and towers of the Alhambra, from the Generalife, Granada, Spain.--Jebulon 20:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sorry, but unsharp and blurrish --Hubertl 23:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't understand this decline vote. I will not push the picture in CR by myself (not my policy), but I think it needs more opinions. Thank you.--Jebulon 20:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  •  Support QI IMO. --P e z i 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 09:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good lighting, beautiful colors, sharp enough. -- Spurzem 15:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • You have no idea how I'm happy of these support. Not because of the image itself, not because of the contradictions to Hubertl's vote (which is absolutely legitime), not because of the QI seal, but because what it shows about the self-regulation of the QI process, not so bad...--Jebulon 18:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
      • This kind of selfregulation should work in other parts too, I remember, you declined pictures one after the other from Moroder, so sometimes we got the feeling, there is something personel between you and him. And its the same in other cases.--Hubertl 23:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Who are "we" ? Don't assume anything.--Jebulon 21:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is sharp enough for me and the colour is just the typical hazy colour of a high noon shot under andalucian sun. However, the verticals could be more rectilinear. --Cccefalon 16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 14:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cacyreus_marshalli_-_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Geranium bronze (Cacyreus marshalli) in the Community of Madrid, Spain. --Kadellar 09:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment  Oppose Needs noise reduction and then sharpening a bit. Fixable IMO. --Hockei 17:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC) *: Not done Kadellar, your last edit is not good enough for me. It's still noisy even if it's a bit better. The sharpness is worse. I don't want to produce a new version for you again, because I wouldn't like it if I were you. --Hockei 18:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    First of all, I made the edit. Second of all, I did NOT denoise the foreground. I applied a noise filter on the background only by masking out the foreground. Any sharpness changes are probably your imagination. Ram-Man 13:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Haha, I didn't notice that you was the editor, sorry. No reason to be angry. But it won't change my opinion. --Hockei 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Not angry. I could go back and adjust the sharpness in addition to the noise, but since it's good enough for me, I'll let someone else take a stab at if they so desire. Ram-Man 02:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I thought the sharpness was fine and the noise was a little annoying, but since I smoothed that out, it's fine for me. Ram-Man 13:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Question, is it legitimate that the editor supports its own work here? I didn't so. --Hockei 17:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)?
    • If that makes me the de-facto nominator, then that means that Kadellar should get a support vote. It amounts to the same thing (one vote between us). Would it make a difference if I supported the original image as well? Let's not get overly legalistic here, all I did was denoise the background and I would have supported if someone else had done that. Would you rather no one perform the edits because they are not willing to lose their vote? Ram-Man 02:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 07:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cacyreus_marshalli_-_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Geranium bronze (Cacyreus marshalli) in the Community of Madrid, Spain. --Kadellar 09:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support weak pro, nice work --Hubertl 00:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Actually the main subject is too small for me. But my main problem is the crop. I don't like it, sorry. --Hockei 17:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm following the rule of thirds here. --Kadellar 12:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I know, but it's not my thing. I really don't like this cut. I made a version with some improvements who I would support. Now, you can decide what you prefer. --Hockei 15:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)  Neutral Just for the second version. I think I must not support it because of my own edit. --Hockei (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's ok now but it is a different picture. --Kadellar 16:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Kadellar, my editing is merely a suggestion to show that it's possible to improve this picture. You can do it by yourself and also you can keep your crop or set it back to the first version. It realy doesn't matter for me. :-) --Hockei 18:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

 Support Ok the new version --Livioandronico2013 11:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 07:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)