Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 08 2014

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Paris,_Hôtel_de_Ville_--_2014_--_1714.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hôtel de Ville, Paris, France --XRay 04:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Overexposed sky. --Iifar 11:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed I tried to fix this problem. Hopefully it's OK now.--XRay 06:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
     Support Upper crop could have been more generous, but nevertheless QI for me now. --Iifar 12:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
     Support --Livioandronico2013 14:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Stiftskirche_Admont_Orgel_01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Nave and organ of Admont Abbey Church, Styria --Uoaei1 07:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Very Nice. --Livioandronico2013 07:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
     OpposeI have to disagree I'm afraid. Nice view, but at full size, the image is not sharp at all. Camera shake prehaps? The windows are also overexposed.--KTC 09:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Yes KTC have right, i apologise --Livioandronico2013 19:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_St-Kunibert-05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: Interior of church St. Kunibert --Cccefalon 17:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    There are some reflection spots (see notes). Can you try to get rid of these, and to reduce the brightness of the windows? --Uoaei1 11:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I removed the spots and recovered the westwork windows. Please, Uoaei1, have a look. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Well done. Maybe the windows are now a bit overdone (too dark) --Uoaei1 16:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 Comment Alright, I set the local brightness to a value between the first and second version. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 04:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Chevrolet_Coupe_Typ_AB_BW_2011-09-03_13-54-37.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Chevrolet National Serie AB Coupé --Berthold Werner 06:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion The retouched plate is a no-go for QI. Also the shadows have to be raised. The perspective needs to be fixed. Some slight magenta CA right side. All resolvable. --Cccefalon 10:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    ok. I have removed the ca and corrected the perspective. The blurred license plate is not a "no-go" for QI, there are lots of QIs with blurred license plates and in this case it was addionally wish of the organiser. --Berthold Werner 08:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, it cannot be a QI then. According to QI Guideline "Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive." --Cccefalon 19:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    Not accepted, two reason are already given. --Berthold Werner 10:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I don’t think the blurred plate impairs the quality or value of this image too severely though it would have been nicer without that manipulation. Why should a blurred plate be a no-go? There’s clearly no intended deception – or who would think when viewing the image the place was really looking like this? --Kreuzschnabel 07:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I took the liberty to apply the required Retouched template. Still, this retouching is an immediate and dominant eye catcher when you open the file. Even in the thumbnal here, it attracts your attention. For me, it even fails the well-done criteria. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support : lots of pictures have already been promoted with a blurred plate (one example among them : File:Citroën DS 21 27 Quai Anatole France license plate blanked 2012-06-02 cropped.jpg). If rules needs to be changed, I think a discussion is needed too before we change.--JLPC (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @JLPC: , @Cccefalon: Just for information, I blurred the license plate on the above photo, because the car was illegally parked, and I did not want to become part of a possible issue between the police and the car owner by publishing the photo with a visible license plate. For the case above, I also think blurring the plate is reasonable mitigation from the guideline, as it was specifically requested by the organizer. --Slaunger 18:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@Slaunger: : The difference is , that your retouchement is perfectly done. --Cccefalon 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 OpposeI see your point, and I also agree the removal of the license plate information could have been done more elegantly. Here it is distracting because the blurred area is completely smooth, while the surrounding parts has texture and structure. --Slaunger 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Info I just checked Images with blanked out license plates. The above mentioned photo of mine is actually currently the only QI (well a version with a different crop is QI too) in that category. Of course that may be because many images, with blurred license plates are not even categorized to this category, like, for instance, the nominated picture, which I have now added to that category. --Slaunger 20:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I generally reject those photos. But I do not crosscheck every review of the buddies here. --Cccefalon 20:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. Yann 17:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it needs brightening (yes I know, that's rich coming from me). Mattbuck 09:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose  Not done Mattbuck 21:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I didn't saw your hint in the long list of comments. I made it now brighter. --Berthold Werner 08:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 09:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Idem--Jebulon 20:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   - --Archaeodontosaurus 09:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 11:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)