Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 17 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Dülmen,_ehem._Textilfabrik_Ketteler-Specht_--_2017_--_1457.jpg[edit]

File:2016-07-29_Kaisermania_2016_in_Dresden_by_Sandro_Halank–8.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Roland Kaiser and Maite Kelly at Kaisermania 2016 --Sandro Halank 12:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Lucasbosch 15:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp --A.Savin 17:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I also find it too unsharp; the lighting conditions are difficult but I have seen better from Sandro Halank before.--Peulle 10:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 17:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2016-07-29_Kaisermania_2016_in_Dresden_by_Sandro_Halank–7.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Roland Kaiser beim Konzert am Dresdner Elbufer (Kaisermania 2016); 29. Juli 2016 --Sandro Halank 12:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Lucasbosch 15:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp --A.Savin 17:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A.Savin. --Peulle 10:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 17:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Gdow_Church_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statues of the Virgin Mary and Pope John Paul II in the Fihauser Family Chapel in the grounds of the Church of Gdów, near Kraków --Scotch Mist 07:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Distracting shadows, bad composition with the doorway, not enough detail for my taste, not enough detail in the shadow areas. --Lucasbosch 09:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lucasbosch: Cropping the image would resolve some of these issues but the natural light in the chapel, which is in the shadow of the church, is poor (no installed lighting so flash necessary) and the archway IMO helps to convey the environment in which the photo was taken - should I simply crop anyway? --Scotch Mist 15:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Scotch Mist: Cropping would only solve the composition, not any of the other points of critique. The image itself is not very detailed and has poor lighting, exactly what a flash positioned close to the lens would produce. --Lucasbosch 17:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 17:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:HH_Harburg_Hafenbf.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hamburg-Harburg, township Heimfeld, a freight train with Taurus engine is waiting in the evening of 27.12.2010 for departure from the port station --KaiBorgeest 22:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very atmospheric. Ikan Kekek 23:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is, but it's also very grainy, despite the resolution not being very high. Is it the weather? I'd like to hear more opinions.--Peulle 23:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment - Winter fog, in my opinion, and realistic as such. -- Ikan Kekek 00:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz 03:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose yes nice, but CA visible and noisy, not a QI image for me. --Alchemist-hp 08:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, noise + composition (mast on the left). --A.Savin 19:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the mast left --Ralf Roletschek 21:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 17:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Nizza-Rue-du-Marché-4081300.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rue du Marché in Nice --Ermell 16:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 18:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop in right top corner is not well done, sorry for me not a Q1 --Michielverbeek 19:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Michielverbeek. I also feel it is a bit overexposed. All fixable.--Peulle (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment New version uploaded.--Ermell 11:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Like this, it is well done. I have changed my mind --Michielverbeek 06:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I'm still not sure about the exposure and colour, but I'll not stand in the way with the new crop in place.--Peulle 07:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry. Unbalanced composition. Strong horizontal distortion (foreground)--Lmbuga 17:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Looked at it several times, read all comments, thought a lot... But at the end I would support it. -- DerFussi 21:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 17:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Bike_in_recife_Pernambuco_State,_Brazil_Northeast_10.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bike in recife Pernambuco --The Photographer 10:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too much noise. Why ISO 600 for a daylight shot of a still object? --Peulle 11:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Noise is gone. ISO 600 because it was not exactly a daylight and I remember this day was quite dark and with storms --The Photographer 12:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I remain at oppose; cleaning up in post-processing has removed the noise, but now the lack of sharpness comes out as a consequense. Especially the rear part of the bike is unsharp. Since the bike was not moving, it should have been possible to take a sharper image. --Peulle 20:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Peulle: I think that now could be done, please, let me know. Thanks --The Photographer 11:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - The other version looks arguable to me, but I find this one OK, overall. -- Ikan Kekek 07:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Sharp enough and QI for me.--Ermell 07:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Agree with Peulle earlier comments but now QI for me also. --Scotch Mist 15:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Better picture is possible with little effort--Lmbuga 16:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Very interesting bike and all sharp. --Ralf Roletschek 21:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 17:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)