Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 10 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Brouage_17_Poudrière_Saint-Luc_Portail_2014.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Portal of the Saint-Luke powder store (17th century); Brouage, Charente-Maritime, France. --JLPC 17:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality--Lmbuga 19:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I think the barrel distortion at the bottom should be removed --P e z i 17:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support ok to me as it is. --Cayambe 10:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 Comment (Sorry for the delay). Your good faith can't be suspected, Pezi, and thanks for your review but, if the lower side is curved, it's not only a barrel distorsion : it's a difference of thickness of the stones between the midlle of the wall and its two sides. The curve is visible on two other pictures of the category, especially on this one. So, I've corrected only a bit on the new uploaded file. Thanks anyway to the three of you.--JLPC 07:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 15:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I had seen the other photos and decided that there was no distortion, as JLPC says--Lmbuga 18:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Wasserfall_am_Sylvensteispeicher_(oberhalb_der_Straße)_008.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Schronbach waterfall near the Sylvenstein reservoir. View to the upper part (above the street). --Mummelgrummel 18:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Just looks messy to me - the exposure is that horrible middle-ground between smoothly long-exposure and sharp quick exposure. --Mattbuck 00:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
     Info Hello Mattbuck, thank you for your comments. But at the moment I want a third opinion if possible. You said nothing to the quality details and this is the section of quality images. Just for information: The weather on this day was mostly cloudy and not the best precondition for good colours,for example. --Mummelgrummel 04:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Exposure time too long: the water is blurred, but it should glitter and look like frozen. Try a flash next time --Uoaei1 18:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
     Comment I accept your vote, but I don't agree with Uoaei1: If you want to accentuate the flow of the water, then you have to take a longer exposure. Maybe in this case not long enough, but definitely not the opposite (a short exposure).--Mummelgrummel 08:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Wasserfall_am_Sylvensteispeicher_(oberhalb_der_Straße)_028.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Schronbach waterfall near the Sylvenstein reservoir. View to the upper part (above the street). --Mummelgrummel 18:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Just looks messy to me - the exposure is that horrible middle-ground between smoothly long-exposure and sharp quick exposure. --Mattbuck 00:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
     Info Hello Mattbuck, thank you for your comments. But at the moment I want a third opinion if possible. You said nothing to the quality details and this is the section of quality images. Just for information: The weather on this day was mostly cloudy and not the best precondition for good colours,for example. --Mummelgrummel 04:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Exposure time too long: the water is blurred, but it should glitter and look like frozen. Try a flash next time! --Uoaei1 18:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
     Comment I accept your vote, but I don't agree with Uoaei1: If you want to accentuate the flow of the water, then you have to take a longer exposure. Maybe in this case not long enough, but definitely not the opposite (a short exposure).--Mummelgrummel 08:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

File:JR East DC110.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A KiHa110 series diesel train on the Hachiko Line in Japan (by Sui-setz) --DAJF 02:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Blur --Arctic Kangaroo 17:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    Could do with sharpening, but it's certainly not blurred. Mattbuck 00:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Retford railway station MMB 03 180101.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 180101 at Retford. Mattbuck 11:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support - Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction before it can be promoted. (Right-hand fence and sign) --DAJF 16:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    I accept those appear to be leaning out, but the house behind appears about vertical. I wouldn't actually trust a wooden fence or spindly sign to be upright - I think I took my vertical from D149 signal. Mattbuck 18:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I don't think the image is tilted; it just needs perspective correction. It's not just the fence and sign, as all of the verticals to the right of the signal post (two white lamp posts and the overhead wire supports in the distance between them) all lean outward to the right. The image just needs a bit of tweaking to bring it up to QI level. --DAJF 01:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slightly underexposed. Will support if fixed. Arctic Kangaroo 17:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Mattbuck 23:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it's ok Christian Ferrer 07:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Pleclown 12:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK --Rjcastillo 00:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. All in all ok. --High Contrast 16:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --PierreSelim 23:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)