Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 11 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Imene6.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination femme algerienne (by Samia Dib Benkaci) --Anthere 09:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Well composed image, no noticeable noice. There could be minimal traces of chromatic abberation left on the metallic headband, but this is hardly noticeable. --Liberaler Humanist 11:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: As long as there is no statement of the photographer concerning the personality rights, the image of a person can not be promoted in QIC. --Cccefalon 12:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    This could be solved by asking the uploader to clarify the situation. @Samia Dib Benkaci: doesn't seem to be here very often, i'll try to find his Email. --Liberaler Humanist 09:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, there is no complaint concerning the photographic quality. However, the QIC rule says: Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --Cccefalon 09:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support there are no problem with personality right in this photo, if i can help to put the right right i know the photographer @Samia Dib Benkaci: . if we need a special operation.--Vikoula5 09:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    Isn't it a little bit hypocritical to add the missing tag and then claiming, that there is no problem with personality right? Though I think, that the author or at least the nominator should care about this, my objections are void now. Next time, please add the ✓ Done tag, if you make alterations that are intended to solve the problem. --Cccefalon 12:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    I just correct the tag. and if it is so helpful to put the ✓ Done next time i will do it. Best regards.--Vikoula5 12:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you. As you know the photographer, perhaps you can confer with him about the requirements concerning identifiable persons. --Cccefalon 12:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 19:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Ak55-Busy afternoon.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination African women (by Zuraj studio) --Anthere 09:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support sehr schön. Was ist mit dem Recht am eigenen Bild? --Ralf Roletschek 11:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: As long as there is no statement of the photographer concerning the personality rights, the image of a person can not be promoted in QIC. --Cccefalon 12:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ✓ Done I put the missing tag.--Vikoula5 12:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks, I stroke my oppose. --Cccefalon 13:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 19:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Koguva küla Välja talu vana elumaja*.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Old living house in Koguva village (by A.palu). Kruusamägi 14:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 15:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (“Oppose” was stroked, “support” was added below. Dmitry Ivanov 19:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC).) It can be promoted, but, IMO, the blurred area at the foot of the image spoils the whole photo; most probably, cropping will be the best solution. Dmitry Ivanov 15:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC).
  •  Support IMO both versions are good quality, but I also would prefer the tigter crop --DKrieger 13:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Kruusamägi 10:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 19:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Alcázar,_Jerez_de_la_Frontera,_España,_2015-12-07,_DD_74-79_PAN.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view of the Alcázar, Jerez de la Frontera, Spain --Poco a poco 18:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hasenläufer 19:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: The stitching errors should be eliminiated, see my notes (there are more errors, I didnt marked them all) --Cccefalon 21:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment
    @Cccefalon Wow, you got good eyes! I agree with your comment. --Hasenläufer 23:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
    Good point, I'll address those issues this weekend. Please, give me a few days Poco a poco 12:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    Sure, take your time. Panoramas are a difficult task and easily underestimated in their complexity. Though I can manage to detect such stitching issues, I haven't succeeded to produce my own panoramas. I also think, that when producing a panorama, you easily get blind on your own eyes and it is quite normal, that a careful reviewer will spot some flaws. Cheers, --Cccefalon 12:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded Poco a poco 18:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    There are still three stitching issues left. I made notes. --Cccefalon 22:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded Poco a poco 11:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    Well deserved  Support --Cccefalon 13:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 19:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

File:UBC_Alumni_Centre.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Alumni Centre at the University of British Columbia. --Dllu 03:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose It needs a perspective correction --Michielverbeek 08:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment As far as I can tell, the perspective is well-corrected. Architectural verticals are very close to perfectly parallel and vertical. Dllu 01:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment So, it might be a brilliant image because it is an optical illusion. I don't know, so time for more opinions --Michielverbeek 19:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
    •  Info Here is the picture with a grid superimposed on it. As you can see, vertical perspective distortion is well-corrected. We note that the building has some strange angles (not right angles) when viewed from above, which can cause optical illusions. Dllu 22:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Verticals are OK, but IMHO, some vignetting to be corrected. --C messier 17:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Vignetting is now greatly mitigated. Dllu 19:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I find it too dark (abuse of polarizing filter ?)--Jebulon 21:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info No polarizing filter was used. And, no neutral density filter was used, nor simulated. You cannot possibly use a polarizing filter without making the sky look uneven with a 15mm lens on full frame. The sky is naturally this colour on a clear winter day. Compare with the original JPG out of camera. Dllu 05:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somewhat underexposed, s-curving might help to preserve highlights while brightening midtones. Some remains of CA, not a big issue, not disturbing too much. But moirée in the right parts of the facade. Correctable? -- Smial 14:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Fixed It is now brighter by adjusting tone curve in LAB space. I won't have access to my calibrated IPS monitors until a week from now (I'm on winter vacation), so I can't tell if it was an appropriate adjustment or not. Dllu 00:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ok now for me. --Hubertl 12:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support fine 4 me, too. --Palauenc05 21:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support After all improvements I think it is a Q1photo now --Michielverbeek 21:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 19:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)