Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 10 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Cochem,_Moselufer_--_2015_--_7611-3.jpg[edit]

File:Isurumuniya Rock Temple (5).jpg[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 08:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petrovsky_gate_statue_in_Saint_Petersburg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statue on the Petrovsky gate in the Peter and Paul Fortress in Saint Petersburg. --Moroder 19:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Weak sharpness, especially at the top. ...f5/70mm... Dmitry Ivanov 20:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC).
  •  Comment I resized the picture since the image was cropped from full size without reducing the dimension --Moroder 08:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment From the first reviewer: the opinion remained unchanged, the upper part of the statue is unsharp. Just compare, please, the pedestal and the head of the statue: the difference is obvious, and the unsharpness of the head is obvious, too, it isn’t, even, in “the twilight zone”. I suppose, f5 is too wide here: a little inclination of a camera and, voilà, a part of the statue is out of DoF. Dmitry Ivanov 09:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC).
      •  Comment As you can see here focus is perfect on the statues and f/5 is not too bad for this kind of photo. No reason that it shouldn't be QI --Moroder 21:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 16:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Eglise protestante Wolfendhal Street (4).JPG[edit]

 Comment ✓ Done with the filter of Gimp2 "Despeckle" (dépoussièrage). Is it better?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It is better, but IMHO, not good enough. --C messier 15:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Palauenc05 07:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]