Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 12 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Naturhistorisches_Museum,_Wien_-_Blick_von_Museumsquartier-9892.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna, seen from the MQ --Hubertl 21:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • {{o}} Insufficient quality: Perspective correction needed (left edge of tilts to the right), an unfavourable image (left, the building is cut off, no subject-relevant parts are right). --F. Riedelio 13:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment This isn´t just a building, it´s part of a complex. The right side, the park, is part of it. This crop is intended, perspective is now Fixed. What you see at the left side is less than a third of the depth of the building. --Hubertl 13:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective correctionis OK now.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by F. Riedelio (talk • contribs)
The description should perhaps be changed to 'Partial view of the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna with associated park'. 'in Wien, Österreich' instead of ', Vienna' must be at least in the German description.
✓ Done Thanks for reviewing, F. Riedelio --Hubertl 12:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image. Could be exposure corrected by +0.33 without blowing anything. --Rftblr 13:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Railwaystation Neunkirchen Lower Austria from SSW on 2015-07-11.png[edit]

  • Nomination The railwaystation of Neunkirchen, Lower Austria from the south on Juli 11th, 2015. --Rftblr 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Code 18:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      •  Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 10:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Blueish cast all over the image (see signs). --C messier 15:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Fixed Thanks C messier. --Rftblr 07:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. --User:rftblr 19:34, 8 February 2016(UTC)
  •  Support -- Smial 11:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Strabag_Building_Vienna_from_SE_on_2015-07-10.png[edit]

  • Nomination The Strabag Building in Vienna seen from the south-east on July 10th, 2015. --Rftblr 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Code 18:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      •  Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 10:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. --User:rftblr 19:34, 8 February 2016(UTC)
  •  Support -- Smial 11:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Parish_Church_Neunkirchen_Lower_Austria_from_SE_on_2014-03-08.png[edit]

  • Nomination The Parish Church in Neunkirchen, Lower Austria from south east on March 8, 2014. --Rftblr 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Code 19:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
     Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      •  Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 10:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. --User:rftblr 19:34, 8 February 2016(UTC)
  •  Support Some clipping in small, bright areas, but not really disturbing, so it would be nitpicking to decline because of such minor flaws. -- Smial 11:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Church of Holy Trinity in Korolyov (fragment of gate and bell tower).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Korolyov, Moscow Oblast. The Church of the Holy Trinity. A fragment of the gate and the bell tower. --Dmitry Ivanov 12:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, the sky is posterized. Can you redevelop from RAW? --Cccefalon 12:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC).
    •  Comment To say the truth I don’t see significant posterization on the sky (some problems with a graphic system/a monitor are possible, though). So let’s ask for a third opinion. The reprocessing is possible, but not now, so, if the photo isn’t a QI, then it isn’t a QI. Thanks for review. Dmitry Ivanov 14:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC).
      •  Comment For your convenience, I marked an area with the said posterization. Please make sure, that you verify with a quality monitor. Notebook monitor won't be good enough. --Cccefalon 14:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment A new version (without the reprocessing from RAW) was uploaded. Also, see here, please. Dmitry Ivanov 21:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC).
  •  Support The photo which I see is very good for me. -- Spurzem 08:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me.--Jebulon 14:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)