Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 21 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Plate_of_Acqua_Claudia_in_Palatino.JPG[edit]

File:Left_side_chapel_of_Santa_Maria_sopra_Minerva.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Left side chapel of Santa Maria sopra Minerva --Livioandronico2013 14:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment IMO the center is too bright.--XRay 06:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done thanks for review XRay--Livioandronico2013 15:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. It's much better. --XRay 17:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo is unevenly illuminated by the flash or welding launcher, which is clearly seen in the paintings. Likewise, the cloth on the altar, where all the details were lost. --Steindy 19:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Steindy.--Jebulon 20:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Livioandronico2013 14:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Frescoes_of_the_roof_of_the_church_of_Santa_Maria_sopra_Minerva.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Frescoes of the roof of the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva --Livioandronico2013 13:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Weak  Support Good quality. DoF could be better. Light at the right is a little bit disturbing. --XRay 06:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Heavy disturbing spotlight on the right side. --Steindy 19:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Steindy.--Jebulon 20:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 20:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Tunnel_View_Yosemite_August_2013_panorama.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tunnel View at sunrise. --King of Hearts 06:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment HAlf of the image looks only black on my monitor!?--Moroder 00:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    Brightened with curves. --King of Hearts 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Comment I'd like someone else to review this image --Moroder 18:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Shadows are always strong before the first sun rays, it's widely ok here and the mood is well captured. However I will be tempted to decline for the burned out sky --Christian Ferrer 06:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    The sun was already in the sky, visible; I don't think it is possible or even natural for it to not be burned out. --King of Hearts 20:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Is there the sun on the image? if so I can not make the sun in the sky and if not the sky is overexposed. --Christian Ferrer 21:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
     Support for me. Mattbuck 22:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I'm not experienced enough to judge correctly, in any cases, a nice image. :) --Christian Ferrer 05:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Its posterized, the foreground is unnecessarely dark. No QI for me, even when the mood is pleasent. I tried to fix it, with the original raw file it would be possible. --Hubertl 13:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Hubertl. This is just such an extreme dynamic range that nothing works. It might be better as a black and white as the color does nothing for the image. Ram-Man 13:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, Poco a poco 08:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Livioandronico2013 15:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:141115 Hyogo prefectural Ako Seaside Park Japan19n.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ako Seaside Park --663highland 09:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Perspective needs to be corrected on the right side. --Cayambe 13:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)  Not done --Christian Ferrer 16:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    it dont need any distortion. --Ralf Roletschek 13:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - the house and the pavillions on the right are leaning. --Óðinn 20:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support works for me. Ram-Man 13:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective not done --Cccefalon 08:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Livioandronico2013 15:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Kapelle Mariaberg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chapel on the hill Mariaberg in Kempten (Allgäu), Germany --CHK46 17:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Noticable CA, perspective issues. Mattbuck 21:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Mattbuck ,  Not done within grace period. --Cccefalon 09:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support it dont need distortion. --Ralf Roletschek 13:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With Mattbuck.--Jebulon 23:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Livioandronico2013 15:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Horse December 2014-3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A Lusitano horse. Porto Covo, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Eye fully lost in shadow. --Jkadavoor 17:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes that is true, but is that enough reason for declining? A second opinion, please. Alvesgaspar 10:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe not FP, but definitely QI IMO. --Code 12:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Il n'a pas l'air en bonne santé ton cheval...--Jebulon 21:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Je crois qu'il a trôp mangé!... Alvesgaspar 22:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Its fixable with LR. I tried it. Would be a pity, if this picture will not QI, only because of this repairable shadow.--Hubertl 15:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have no complaints with the horse but the red door is leaning out. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good as is. Ram-Man 13:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Livioandronico2013 15:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Haltern_am_See,_Hullern,_St.-Andreas-Kirche_--_2014_--_3237.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Saint Andreas in Hullern, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sorry ,the church is good but the sky is burn out --Livioandronico2013 09:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Thanks. Lights in sky are fixed.--XRay 11:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  weak support Mmm...i'm not very sure,is better wait for other opinions --Livioandronico2013 14:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  weak support The sky has color distortions that look worse in small thumbnails than at larger magnifications. I normally oppose this type of technical issue. Borderline case for me, but I think just good enough. -- Ram-Man 13:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong  Oppose. The sky in the original is simply gray without details. There is very slight overexposure, but no disturbing colour change by clipping. Simply light gray, sky sometimes looks like this. Upper right corner has some artifacts by some unsufficiant overpainted disturbing leaves. These errors were massively reinforced by the processing. Also the contrast increase in the sky created completely wrong colours. It is total mystery to me why such a rape is required, performed and then be approved. Weia. -- Smial 01:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC) (i'd support the first version, it's not a great image, but completely acceptable.)
  • ✓ Fixed Sorry, I assumed it was a cloud top right ... I haven't seen my own correction. Now it's fixed.--XRay 06:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    •  Comment Ich würde lieber auf das QI-Bapperl verzichten, statt wegen einiger kurioser Beurteilungen meine Bilder zu verhunzen. -- Smial 10:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Ps.: Das Rausstempeln ist jetzt durchaus gelungen.
      •  Comment Das nehme ich mal mit einem wohlwollenden Lächeln auf. Die Kritik ist sehrwohl meistens - also auch meiner Meinung nach nicht immer - durchaus berechtigt. (Aber du hast recht, in der Vergangenheit gab es schon einmal Bilder, die mir hinterher nicht mehr gefallen haben, auch wenn es nur eine Handvoll war. Das ist aber schon ein paar Wochen her.)--XRay 17:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Livioandronico2013 15:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Shvetsova_Street_SPB_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Shvetsova Street in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 09:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 Oppose Left crop should be improved IMHO (get rid of the piece of car and scaffolding) Poco a poco 14:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's a big problem (symmetry would be broken). --Florstein 17:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    What about cropping both sides? (see note with proposal) Poco a poco 18:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    А можно и просто с левой стороны фото обрезать - по мне симметрия не столь важна для QI (снимают же улицы несимметрично). en: I think we can crop the photo only on the left side; for me, symmetry is not the main factor for QI. --Brateevsky 11:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    Brateevsky, мне бы хотелось сохранить и симметрию, и детали. У меня иногда при съёмке улиц (и станций метро) присутствует симметрия как фишка, так что в данном случае это важно. I'd wanted to keep the symmetry (as a shtick), saving maximum of details. May be let's ask the society (is scaffolding so dreadful)? --Florstein 20:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support not very disturbing --Christian Ferrer 20:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support crop would be better, but it's not critical for a QI. Ram-Man 13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Livioandronico2013 15:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)