Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 07 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Мечеть_Узбека_і_медресе.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ozbek Han Mosque, Staryi Krym, Crimea. By User:Neovitaha777 --Ата 15:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 16:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think this is QI: flanks are quite blurred, needs perspective correction, and, most importanty, the top of the minaret is cut off. --Óðinn 19:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not QI. Stripes in the sky at the right, unsharp left and right, perspective correction neccessary. IMO not fixable. --XRay 13:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 15:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Innenansicht_Christuskirche_Ibbenbüren_06.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of Christus Church in Ibbenbüren, Germany --Basotxerri 21:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Nice work! --Michael Barera 02:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction required, verticals are not straight --Uoaei1 05:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
     Comment ✓ Fixed ...or at least I've tried it. --Basotxerri 17:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed I have corrected the perspective using GIMP (sorry, these corrections are new to me). Regarding the CAs, I am not sure if they exist: take into account that this is a coloured church window. --Basotxerri 20:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, needs perspective correction. CAs at the windows (right). (And I like EXIF data.) --XRay 13:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 15:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Innenansicht_Christuskirche_Ibbenbüren_03.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of Christus Church in Ibbenbüren, Germany --Basotxerri 21:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Michael Barera 02:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction required, verticals are not straight --Uoaei1 05:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
     Comment ✓ Fixed ...or at least I've tried it. --Basotxerri 17:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed I have corrected the perspective using GIMP (sorry, these corrections are new to me). Regarding the CAs, I am not sure if they exist: take into account that this is a coloured church window. --Basotxerri 20:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction required, CAs at the windows (right). Sorry, at this time not QI. --XRay 13:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 15:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Hranice 04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hranice (Prerov District, Moravia) Town Hall Tower --Scotch Mist 20:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sky posterized. --Medium69 01:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Thank you for your review. Sky, as per original image, is not 'pure blue' but has not been enhanced so am uncertain as to how this image, or future photos with a lot of 'natural sky', can meet QI standards and therefore would appreciate further comments. --Scotch Mist 11:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Frankly I don't see any posterization. But the image has to be cropped by 11 pixels on the right. --Tsungam 12:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Have slightly cropped the image (although original image still showing in my browser after refresh). --Scotch Mist 20:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see a problem with the sky either. IMO it's good enough. --Palauenc05 18:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of perspective issue (tower is leaning in). However I see no problem with the sky. --Uoaei1 08:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Question whether this tower is rectilinear (reference third-party photos) but would you recommend perspective adjustment to gain QI support? --Scotch Mist 10:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes please, should easily be possible. I would support then. --Uoaei1 13:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs de-noising. I see posterization in the sky. Alvesgaspar 19:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Have uploaded new image (although not showing in my updated browser) with perspective adjusted (tower 'straightened') and with light selective Gaussian blur filtering to remove 'posterization effect'. --SM1 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 15:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Novy Jicin 05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Assumption Tower and Saint Nicholas Column in Nový Jičín --Scotch Mist 20:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sky posterized. --Medium69 01:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Thank you for your review. Sky, as per original image, is not 'pure blue' but has not been enhanced so am uncertain as to how this image, or future photos with a lot of 'natural sky', can meet QI standards and therefore would appreciate further comments. --Scotch Mist 11:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of perspective issue (tower is leaning in). However I see no problem with the sky. --Uoaei1 08:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Question whether this tower is rectilinear (reference third-party photos) but there is a little apparent 'tilt' in the buildings on the right - would you recommend perspective adjustment to gain QI support? --Scotch Mist 10:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Have uploaded new image (although not showing in my updated browser) with perspective adjusted (tower 'straightened') and with very light selective Gaussian blur filtering to remove 'posterization effect'. --Scotch Mist 10:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 15:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Tapirus_indicus_(Tapir_de_Malaisie)_-_450.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Tapirus indicus (Malayan tapir) in the ZooParc de Beauval in Saint-Aignan-sur-Cher, France. -- Medium69 01:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support OK. --C messier 17:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As usual, nothing like sharp enough for QI. Please select your wildlife QI candidates with more care. It is time-consuming for those of us trying to maintain standards rejecting them. Charlesjsharp 11:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 Comment Your comment has no value to me because it's a revenge... --Medium69 01:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 15:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)