Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 02 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:753 759+758 CZ-CDC Paskov - Biocel Paskov.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wood block train for Biocel Paskov pulp mill --Cmelak770 18:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 19:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. WB should be fixed and dustspots removed.--Ermell 22:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell --Cccefalon 04:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Green and blue colours are painfull for my eyes, it's quiet simple to correct this (see note Ermell), untill now a  Oppose --Michielverbeek 05:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose oversaturated, visible dustspots. --Alchemist-hp 21:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Alchemist-hp 21:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

File:2016_Wrocław,_Rynek_44_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 44 Market Square in Wrocław 1 --Jacek Halicki 08:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It looks tilted. Can it be fixed before promotion? --Peulle 13:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support where is the tilt? It seems ok for me. If you mean the horizontal tilt, this is the fully correct perspective distortion. --Hubertl 18:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Photo is not tilted. Only person in right bottom corner disturb the image but that's no reason for a decline --Michielverbeek 05:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Chelydra-serpentina3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Skull of a chelydra serpentina, lateral view. --Sven Volkens 23:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA on left side Ezarate 00:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment compared to what w:Purple fringing shows I am not that unhappy, but yeah. -Sven Volkens 13:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Maybe but I prefer another reviewer opinion Ezarate 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support The image is well lit and has decent focus, which is hard to achieve on such a 3D object. Probably not a featured picture, but I think good enough for QI. Let's discuss. --Peulle 10:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chromatic aberrations. There are always worse examples but that is not a reason to bypass necessary enhancements. --Cccefalon 05:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment We are talking about roughly a width of 10px in a 5000x3000px image. As far as I understand this is a physical issue resulting of a poor quality lense on my equipment. this is as good as it gets for me. Compared to the effort I put into this image I belive the quality-issue is rather small. especially after reading the "value" and "purpose" section again ;-) --Sven Volkens 14:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I still do not understand, why - instead of arguing and arguing - you just do not remove the CA. That is the simplest task in whole postprocessing. A 10px CA is absolutely not acceptable. Same goes for your other images of the skulls which I declined too. --Cccefalon 19:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cccefalon: lesson learned - I did use lightroom now (thank's to User:Raymond's teaching), removing CA really is a thing on open source tools (and as a bloody w:noob), thanks everyone! -Sven Volkens (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you --Cccefalon 15:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 06:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Francisco,_Lima,_Perú,_2015-07-28,_DD_74.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Church of St Franciscus, Lima, Peru --Poco a poco 08:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Too much noise (grainy). --Peulle 14:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not sure about that, looks good enough for QI to me, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 17:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sure thing - I looked particularly at the "temple" bits (not the people), and the Jesus statue and flat golden panels all look quite grainy to me.
  •  Support weak pro, but Pro. The demanded issues are acceptable. --Hubertl 10:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Alchemist-hp 21:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Alchemist-hp 21:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Ferrari-Monaco-4071013.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Ferrari 488 GTB --Ermell 12:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment Image contains only a small portion of the car; title insufficient. --Peulle 14:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC) **@Peulle:
    ✓ DoneI hope it´s better now. Thanks for the review--Ermell 09:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 Question I just noticed something - should the VIN number be censored? --Peulle 21:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I admit and removed the number althoug it was hardly readable.--Ermell 07:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks better now; the image itself is good and now the title stuff is OK. QI for me, unless someone disagrees? --Peulle 09:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not working out: for a side-view the perspective is wrong, unfortunatly there is another car in the back, logo is blurry. -Sven Volkens (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 05:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Protea_coronata_1-9818.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Protea coronata, flowerhead --SAplants 17:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose DoF too small. --Peulle 17:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment User:Peulle, can you explain your double standard of assessing the DoF between the two Protea flowerheads? Obviously, the DoF is the same, but one image is supported and the other declined. --Cccefalon 20:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment Hello, yes, I find the DoF in this makes the centre out of focus, whereas the other has a different angle so that the centre of the flower remains in focus. Others may disagree, if so, feel free to weigh in. --Peulle 20:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 08:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support DoF is fine. OK for me. --XRay 12:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nothing against DoF but disturbing overexposition (not fixable) --Christian Ferrer 17:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too tight crop and DoF problem. --Alchemist-hp 21:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Alchemist-hp 21:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)