Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 22 2013

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Strasbourg_cathédrale_Notre-Dame_adoration_des_mages.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Depiction of the adoration of the Magi, sculptures of Jacques de Landshut on the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Strasbourg, work of architect Jakob von Landshut; executed during the years 1494-1505. --Paralacre 20:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Naming the author is a QI nomination criteria. --Cccefalon 09:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
     Support I think that this picture, created by Ctruongngoc, meet the QI criteria. Pymouss 13:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, I used a gadget to propose the picture and I forgot to name the author Ctruongngoc (talk · contribs)… --Paralacre (talk)
     Oppose Ok, naming problem resolved but it still needs perspective correction. For my perception, the left dark side is - because of its size - also too dominant. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above --Vamps 17:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Every year the same problem... IMO, the WLM laureate pictures should meet COM:IG as a pre-requirement. Obviously it is not the case here, even if the author is a "Commons" regular since a very long time...--Jebulon 10:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support For this kind of details, the perspective correction is a minor issue. The overall quality and the composition appear very good to me, way better than a lot of QI. I agree that all WLM images can't be promoted but a few deserve to be. This one does. --Selbymay 20:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Selbymay 20:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Wraxall 2011 MMB 60 Christmas tree.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Christmas tree. Mattbuck 08:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good IMO. --Hockei 10:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. The DOF is insufficient; sharpness is in the background (chimney), not on the motif. --Cccefalon 10:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 05:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   -- Smial 16:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Eliseevs'_House_SPB_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Eliseevs' House in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 11:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Main building is leaning to the right and the lower part of the picture seems really flattened (see the cars). --Selbymay 11:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
     Comment It was shooting at small angle to the line of builbings. Plus side effects of a wide-angle lens. --Florstein 12:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
     Support OK to me --A.Savin 12:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad camera position chosen so the building looks unnecessary distorted. -- Smial 16:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Christian Ferrer 19:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No improvement done. --Selbymay (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose visible distortion --Vamps 17:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- --Selbymay 19:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:2013.08.04.-11-Ladenburg-Gebaenderte Prachtlibelle-Maennchen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gebänderte Prachtlibelle - Calopteryx splendens, Männchen (male) --Hockei 19:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 22:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Too much blurred tail --Christian Ferrer 11:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose too many blurry areas --Archaeodontosaurus 16:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   -- Smial 16:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Sèvres_-_Moulage-reparage_-_moulage_012.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stamp-moulding at the Moulding workshop of the manufacture nationale de Sèvres. --Coyau 14:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose clipped whites and noisy --A.Savin 14:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree Cannot find any one clipping Pixel, noise is not zero, but ineglible. --Smial 19:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit noisy, but not overly so. Good handling of light and high encyclopedic value. --Jastrow 18:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy and DOF not enough IMO. --Hockei (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 17:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   -- Smial 15:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Inowrocław kościół NMP(WLZ13).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Holy Name of Mary church in Inowrocław, Poland. --1bumer 17:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed sky (unnatural color) and perspective issues Poco a poco 22:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco. Mattbuck 21:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Over-exposed? Why must the sky be dark blue? I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 11:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion I think the sky looks natural enough. If the perspective can be corrected I might give it a support. Lewis Hulbert 12:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
     Comment  Support Uploaded new version with some corrections. -- Smial 16:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 13:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. --Dirtsc 16:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me now. --Cayambe 22:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 22:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Castle Combe Circuit MMB B5 Castle Combe Saloon Car Championship.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Castle Combe Circuit. Mattbuck 09:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Review The cars should be sharp. Bad composition.  Oppose -- Spurzem 00:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
    They are doing 100mph, and even at 1/250th they go a fair distance during overexposure. I think it makes it look more dynamic. Mattbuck 21:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
     Support quality is ok and compo is good --Christian Ferrer 12:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
    @ Christian Ferrer: Obviously you have never seen a good photo of motor racing. :-) -- Spurzem 11:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose main object is not sharp and really also not unsharp (this is a option). --Ralf Roletschek 11:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The main objects are not the cars, but all the frame. OK for me. Pleclown 12:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   -- Smial 15:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Force Traveller Kuoni ambulance, 2008.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Indian ambulance --Bahnfrend 13:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Not the better lighting, IMO.--Jebulon 15:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
    • It's fairly typical hazy light for that time of year in India, IMO appropriate for the subject matter - see my other Indian photos. --Bahnfrend 02:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
      • But the light comes from wrong side. Otherweise the photo were OK. -- Spurzem 08:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC))
      • The light is very diffuse. The shadowed area is not underexposed. Are you suggesting that backlit images can't be QI, simply because they're backlit? --Bahnfrend 01:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment P e z i has kindly brightened this image for me. Could it now be re-reviewed, please? --Bahnfrend 08:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You had this long conversation and didn't mention the fact it's tilted? Mattbuck 18:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
    •  Disagree The vehicle is tilted because it's parked on a slope. The walls and stairs in the background are not tilted. --Bahnfrend 08:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Backlighting isn't a problem at all. Jastrow 17:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Verticlals of the background are tilted --Christian Ferrer 12:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Euston station MMB A9 Statue of Robert Stephenson.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Euston station. Mattbuck 08:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support - Good quality, though it would have been nice to see the Hand with that paper roll(?) completely --Smial 08:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of the uncomplete composition (at least, I need the paper roll (?)). The file name and description here are not accurate. I don't see any station.--Jebulon 09:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    The statue is by the main entrance to the station. Mattbuck 15:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
    We’ve had that – Matt prefers to name his images by location rather than by the object shown. I am not too happy with that habit, the more so as he (thankfully) likes to focus on details. "Statue by Euston Station" would have done much better here. --Kreuzschnabel 07:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
    The statue is in the grounds, I can rename it to Euston station MMB A9 Statue of George Stevenson.jpg if you want. Mattbuck 22:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   -- Smial 15:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Reptil-cosmocaixa-2009.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Reptile of Cosmocaixa's museum of Barcelona-Catalonia-Spain --Alberto-g-rovi 18:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very nice -- Spurzem 22:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please identify and categorize the genus and species which is a QI criteria. --JDP90 12:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Identification and categorization not done. --Cayambe 18:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 18:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Deckengemaelde Stift Altenburg-DSC 3039w.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Staircase (Library vestibule) of the library of "Stift Altenburg", Lower Austria --P e z i 21:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Considering the restrictions of available light, it is still good quality. Support! --Cccefalon 22:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wonderful place, as often in Austria. It is more a need of another opinion than a real oppose. But I think the sharpness is just under the limit, and the noise a bit over the limit. There is a (barrel, or pincushion) distorsion to be corrected. I know it is difficult. Other thoughts, please ?--Jebulon 17:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 Comment thanks for review. Uploaded new version: tried to rectify, further denoising is impossible (for me). --P e z i 21:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support With regard to the high resolution sharpness and noise is more than OK. --Tuxyso 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise seems acceptable now but the right side is not straight. --Selbymay 08:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Pour qu'il n'y avait pas de bruit, il faut allumer le projecteur, et c'est déjà de la photographie professionnelle avec une résolution de cette bibliothèque. La photo je l'ai vraiment aimé. Mais j'ajoutrais de luminosité et de contraste. --Anna Anichkova 20:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 Comment Merci beaucoup pour votre indication. J'ai essayé de l'améliorer ... --P e z i 10:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Selbymay 08:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nailsea and Backwell railway station MMB 96 150121.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 150121 at Nailsea & Backwell. Mattbuck 08:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Buring image and main object not sharp enough. -- Spurzem 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Did you mean "boring" or "blurred"? The former is not relevant, the latter is untrue, and the main subject is perfectly sharp. Mattbuck 18:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 06:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the foreground is just too distracting, with the main subject only being the smallest part of the image. I also think the train is bordering on being unsharp. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    It's showing that people are waiting, and in what way is the train possibly unsharp? Mattbuck 21:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 22:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

File:University Park MMB «95 The Downs.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: The Downs of University Park/ Mattbuck 08:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Too dark. -- Spurzem 23:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It's an accurate reflection of conditions. Mattbuck 18:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice --Christian Ferrer 06:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Doesn't look too dark to me Lewis Hulbert 13:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Blurred Lines 16:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same as Spurzem. Snow is difficult to photograph and the exposure often leads to failure measurements. --XRay 19:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose person and trees are underexposed --P e z i 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    I have slightly brightened it, but not by much as doing so ruins the feel of the photo. Mattbuck 16:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Cayambe 09:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Hednesford Hills Raceway MMB 12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Hednesford Hills Raceway. Mattbuck 07:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Very bad composition. There is no speed and no dynamics to be seen. -- Spurzem 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
That's because the car was being driven at walking pace. Note how the driver isn't wearing a helmet - he's not racing. Mattbuck 19:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cayambe 20:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Kings Norton railway station MMB 07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Kings Norton railway station. Mattbuck 07:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Dark and boring. What will this image show us? -- Spurzem 22:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not dark, and you being bored is not relevant. Mattbuck 19:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 06:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support  Comment This is not Featured picture nomination, this is QIC. Boring is not a reason here to oppose. --JDP90 12:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment...and this is not a reason to support a contrario (i.e. because of irrelevant opposition), of course !--Jebulon 10:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I had a second thought. Agree with you. --JDP90 18:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cayambe 20:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Gloucester railway station MMB 43 170639.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: 170639 at Gloucester. Mattbuck 07:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose The main part at the right is to dark. Beside the image is very boring for me. -- Spurzem 22:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
That is because it's under a canopy, so yes it will be dark, and your boredom is not relevant. I don't find a lot of the photos I review interesting - I have no interest in sculpture or art or ancient architecture, but I review them anyway on the purely technical standards that QI is about. Mattbuck 19:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 06:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support  Comment What is the relevance of boring in QIC? --JDP90 12:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Cayambe 19:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)