Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 09 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:MK29840_Dotzheimer_Straße_68.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of the building Dotzheimer Straße 68 in Wiesbaden --Martin Kraft 21:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality but get the verticals rectilinear --Cccefalon 21:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose until perspective is fixed --Christian Ferrer 13:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose Obviously I was wrong with my estimation, that the photographer will follow up my request. A pity. --Cccefalon 05:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Dársena_del_Canal_de_Castilla_en_Palencia_-_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Docks of the Channel of Castile in Palencia, Castile and León, Spain. --Kadellar 09:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Review  Support Good quality --Halavar 11:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree - there is strong CA around. I will take back my oppose after handling the issues. --Cccefalon 11:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    "Strong" CA? Slight I would say, I hadn't even seen it. --Kadellar 11:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sigh. --Cccefalon 12:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Oberes Belvedere Wien, Panorama.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Oberes Belvedere Wien --Böhringer 06:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion You are aware, that you are doing flooding? --Cccefalon 06:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    See above (imho no flooding) --Tuxyso 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
     Support --Uoaei1 06:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support A completely nonsensical comment for an excellent photo. Undoubtedly QI. --Steindy 22:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Burg Hohenbregenz, Gebhardsberg .jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Burg Hohenbregenz --Böhringer 06:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Please read the QIC rules. Your mass nominations are considered flooding and this is leading to decline all your nomination. --Cccefalon 06:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    See above (imho no flooding) --Tuxyso 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. --Steindy 22:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

File:GH Löwen Gaststube, Au Rehmen, Böhringer 6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination GH Löwen Gaststube --Böhringer 06:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Declined for reason of flooding --Cccefalon 06:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    See above (imho no flooding) --Tuxyso 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. --Steindy 22:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Waldfriedgasse 1 Feldkirch Villa Waldfried.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Feldkirch Villa Waldfried --Böhringer 05:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Declined for reason of flooding --Cccefalon 06:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    i vote photos and this ist good. --Ralf Roletschek 21:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC))
     Oppose Perspective issues (lamp post and house leaning in) --Uoaei1 06:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_barokowa_brama_10.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Baroque Gate on Kościelny Square in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 19:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI -- Spurzem 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC  OpposeWhere is the gate? Who is that man ? Not accurate description.--Jebulon 20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC))
  •  Support very good photo, here isn't the competition of quality descriptions. --Ralf Roletschek 07:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Please read the guidelines. And here is not a competition at all.--Jebulon 22:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed area on the right --Christian Ferrer 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment. Dass ein winziger Bereich das Sonnenlicht reflektiert, sollte kein Grund sein, das Bild insgesamt abzulehnen. -- Spurzem 18:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    The area overexposed is clearly in focus and thus is a part of the subject and also clearly burned out with no details, for me a reason to oppose, sorry Christian Ferrer 21:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The small overexposed areas could have been better handled, but are not really disturbing. Average, but acceptable sharpness. -- Smial 08:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Ps: I'm very happy, Jacek has switched his camera (resp. post processing methods) to less saturated and much more natural colours than before.
  •  Comment I completed the descriptions. --Jacek Halicki 10:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now. Yann 09:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_barokowa_brama_12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Baroque Gate on Kościelny Square in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 19:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support. QI -- Spurzem 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)  OpposeWhere is the gate? Who is that man ? Not accurate description.--Jebulon 20:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support very good photo, here isn't the competition of quality descriptions. --Ralf Roletschek 07:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed at left --Christian Ferrer 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment. Ich kann die Ablehnung nicht verstehen. Wo Schatten ist, ist nun manchmal auch Licht, das hier das Bild nicht stört. -- Spurzem 18:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I completed the descriptions. --Jacek Halicki 10:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok with the new description. The overexposed area is not too disturbing. Regards, Yann 17:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Cambio_de_la_Guardia_del_Castillo_de_Windsor,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-12,_DD_10.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Changing of the Guard of the Windsor Castle, England --Poco a poco 08:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Nice composition (on a dreary day), but there's a fair amount of blur on the left. --Mattbuck 14:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 18:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I don't think this is QI. Mattbuck 21:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss this one, I see no big issues here --Poco a poco 09:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Radków,_kościoł_św._Andrzeja_Boboli_04.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Andrew Bobola church in Radków --Jacek Halicki 10:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  CommentIMO there CAs (soee note).--XRay 11:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 22:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --XRay 11:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Oppose Main subject in shadow. Too strong distortion of the bell tower.--Jebulon 20:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, as Jebulon. --Lmbuga 23:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

File:12-01-20-yog-510.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Martin Sesaker (NOR), Curling --Ralf Roletschek 14:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI -- Spurzem 19:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Oppose meaningless name.--Jebulon 11:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    * Sure, this photos are wrong here in this competition of quality filenames. I see no reason to change anything. It ma be: Мартин Sesaker из Норвегии, когда Corling на юношеских Олимпийских играх 2012.jpg. --Ralf Roleček 12:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Jebulon: I don't understand the problem. -- Spurzem 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@Spurzem: just read once, only once, the guidelines.--Jebulon 22:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"meaningless" is undefined. Is russian or chinese meaningless? I can take at all my photos long czech, russian, finish or catalá names, is this better? No, its nonsense. So as your view of guidelines. --Ralf Roletschek 12:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Russian? Chinese? Czech? Finish? Catalá ? Fine for me, and useful for users ! 12-01-20-yog-510 is meaningless, this is the nonsense, sorry.--Jebulon 21:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Nobody needs a second description in the filename. In this filename are the date, the theme (youth olympic game) and a number, more is no needed. --Ralf Roletschek 14:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't say "Youth Olympic Games" though, it says "yog". "yog" is meaningless, and the fact it's all in lower case implies it's not even an acronym.  Oppose on grounds of having a useless name. Mattbuck 16:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Meaningless name. Yann 17:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Lüdinghausen, Burg Lüdinghausen -- 2014 -- 5494-6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Burg Lüdinghausen, Lüdinghausen, Germany --XRay 03:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Poor masking in tree limbs on the left. --Kbh3rd 14:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hmm. I do not see as a big problem as it is in the dark.--XRay 16:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  CommentNo, it's definitely a problem. I saw it right away even at less than full resolution. Along the rooftop, too. (Is your monitor properly calibrated?) It's not in the original, so it can be salvaged. Otherwise a fine photo. Kbh3rd 02:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
✓ Fixed You're right. I haven't seen the problems at the rooftop. Now I adjusted the CA correction.--XRay 11:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support. Much better. I can't be sure it's all fixed, but I like this image enough to offer my support and see if others concur.

File:Nepomuk-Statue am Kahlenberg in Wien.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination statue of Johannes Nepomuk at Nussberg, Vienna --Mariofan13 09:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Insufficient categorization (meaning: no valid categorization). I haven't checked for photographic issues, might be, there is more to complain.. --Cccefalon 09:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, but we're at Quality Image candidates, not at quality category candidates. The category dropdown didn't show a category for Johann Nepomuk at Nussberg, Vienna, so the other option was to upload without any category. Please discuss the Quality of the image Mariofan13 10:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
     Comment Please read our QIC guidelines and find out, that correct categorization is an essential part to make a nomination eligible. If there is no suitable categorization present, create one. If you are not capable how to do that, ask someone or read the appropriate help page. --Cccefalon 10:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    I added a category for the image. Is it okay now? Mariofan13 10:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment While the categorization is fine now, there are photographic issues present: It is too dark in the shadows and too noisy IMO. I'm not sure, if it is fixable, as the ISO rating is already 800. --Cccefalon 09:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting statue, but it looks very dark, and the upper crop is too tight: the composition is unbalanced to me. I'm afraid the noise is too strong. Please notice that I agree 100% with Cccefalon about need of categorization.--Jebulon 14:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment The problem is that the statue is overexposed if the background is lighter, look this file Mariofan13 16:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, too dark and rustling. Make some new photos in bright sunlight and find out the best one. --Steindy 18:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I uploaded a lighter version, which should address the comments above. Regards, Yann 09:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)