Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 27 2014

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:London MMB »0K3 choisya ternata.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination choisya ternata Mattbuck 07:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Not really convinced by the composition, maybe a crop can help but not sure --Christian Ferrer 11:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose The blurred foreground is too disturbing. --Hockei 18:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
     Support Very nice composition. --Code 13:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurry foreground. -- Spurzem 11:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The large blurry foreground is very disturbing. --Steindy 13:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Livioandronico2013 10:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Paide kohtuhoone 2014.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: Paide courthouse. Kruusamägi 01:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Review  Support I don't like the fringing in the trees, but it's away from the main subject and not distracting. So good enough for QI. --Ram-Man 03:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Notable magenta fringing on the branches in the foreground left side as well as the magenta on the right side. This issue is easy to fix and there is no reason to lower the standards for a quality image. --Cccefalon 08:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong time of the day, the facade should not be in shadow.--Jebulon 21:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I worked on a image a bit. Better? Kruusamägi 20:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, better regarding the light, but less shadow means much more noise, sorry.--Jebulon 10:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Noise level acceptable, sharpness ok. No need to rise the standards for a quality image until only cameras and lenses worth thousands of bucks are possible. -- Smial 14:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Same arguments as Smial. --Steindy 23:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Livioandronico2013 20:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
    • It would be nice to provide a justification in CR :-( -- Smial 01:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support in this version QI for me --Hubertl 02:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Livioandronico2013 20:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Jacobaea maritima20140629 52.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Inflorescences of Jacobaea maritima. --Bff 14:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Please remove the magenta shine (downsized CA) from the background leaves. --Cccefalon 16:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
     Support Good enough for a QI as is. Ram-Man 13:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Jkadavoor 06:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment. Very nice photo but it should be possible to reduce the CA before support. -- Spurzem 22:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Steindy 12:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 10:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Laukkasarenkatu.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Laukkasarenkatu, Helsinki. --Óðinn 16:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment IMO too much shadow at the bottom. Another crop would be fine.--XRay 17:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
     Support Another crop would be fine, but it's fine uncropped. Cropping lowers value slightly. Ram-Man 13:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
     Support --Msaynevirta 17:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose with XRay.--Jebulon 21:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support not so disturbing here --Christian Ferrer 03:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Crop is better now (but the shadow is still a little bit disturbing), so it's good for QI.--XRay 10:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 10:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Bilder_im_Hofgarten,_München,_Deutschland4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Paintings on bavarian history in Hofgarten, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 09:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. It looks like two images in one. Contrast is missing and IMO it is not sharp enough (for example top left). --XRay 17:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Not really convinced about this one: ✓ new version Poco a poco 09:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 18:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Info I uploaded a new version with much higher contrast. This would satisfy me. Ram-Man 13:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Derek, I've just uploaded a new version following yours as guide. I think it is better working always out of the RAW, I hope you don't mind. Thank you for your help! Poco a poco 20:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support, the painting was and still is better than other versions in this category, and folks can crop the ugly pillars if they want only the painting. –Be..anyone 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support This could use an unsharp mask (10%, radius 35 pixels) for localized contrast enhancements beyond simple curves, but it's good enough for me now as is. Ram-Man 12:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 10:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)