Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 09 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Antonio_María_Rouco_Varela_-_Domingo_de_Ramos_2014_Madrid.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Antonio María Rouco Varela, cardinal archbishop of Madrid, during Palm Sunday celebrations in Madrid. --Kadellar 16:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Good but cw tilted.--ArildV 08:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Fixed now, thanks. --Kadellar 15:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)  Support--ArildV 17:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Cardinal is backlit and looking down --Charlesjsharp 12:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Are you joking? Since when must people be looking up? He is old and grey and he was walking this way for hundres of metres. Since when can't we have backlit subjects? Everything is well exposed. --Kadellar 22:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with Kadellar. We don't need ridiculous oppose reasons. However, there is a slight CA on the glasses and around the tiara. The photo is tilted cw. Furthermore I think, that the palm leave is an essential requisite for the depicted ceremony. Unfortunately the palm leave is cut. That's why I cannot grant support.  Oppose --Cccefalon 05:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
     Comment My opinion on a back-lit image like this was not ridiculous. Just basic photographic technique. --Charlesjsharp 08:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    While something being backlit can be an issue if it means the subject has no detail or the background is overexposed, that is not the case here. The subject is well lit, and while looking down is unfortunate it's not problematic. We are not aiming to perfect reality, we are aiming to take photos of how the world is. Mattbuck 12:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 20:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)(and it is a "mitre", not a "tiara".)
  •  Comment In addition to the pink CA at glasses, there seems to be a lot green CA in the background (I support, if this is removed). Apart from that, a nice image, the cropped palm leave is not so critical IMO. Also very nice outfit, these Catholic dignitaries seem to have carnival all year round. I guess, the image is not tilted, he is just bent forward either for reasons of humility (sort of déformation professionnelle) or of old age. --NorbertNagel 08:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Norbert, my comment about tilt is not according to the archbishop but upon the verticals of the buildings in the background. You can even see from thumbnail. --Cccefalon 14:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Cccefalon 04:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Starbeck railway station MMB 17 150118.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 150118 at Starbeck. Mattbuck 07:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Badly framed, rubbish bin in background. Man distracts from image. --Charlesjsharp 08:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    This is not FP. Would the photo be better without the bin and man, sure, but they were there, and removing them would present an incorrect picture. --Mattbuck 12:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Photo is QI according to QIC rules and good practice of this project. However, my support includes the wish, that you raise the brightness a little bit. --Cccefalon 13:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Brightness is ok. The photo was taken on such a cloudy day. --Arctic Kangaroo 00:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 04:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Amersham station MMB 34.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Jackdaw at Amersham station. Mattbuck 07:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  OpposeBeak not in focus. Bird put right in the centre of the image. Railway platform does not enhance image. --Charlesjsharp 08:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    This is not FP. It's not going to be a perfect photo, it is a photo of what it is. --Mattbuck 12:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
     Support QI. --P e z i 17:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Based on QI criteria: Subject should be sharp. Composition must be good (in this case, I think rule-of-thirds should be followed). Sorry Mattbuck. --Arctic Kangaroo 00:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 16:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --JDP90 12:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Could be sharper and not as dark, but I think it's still a QI. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 04:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)