Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 18 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Telc 20.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination John of Nepomuk Statue with Telč Jesuit Seminary and Church Towers in Background --Scotch Mist 11:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. Perhaps a bit oversaturated. --Cayambe 17:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, picture is tilted. --Jacek Halicki 18:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)  Support --Jacek Halicki 19:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Have uploaded rotated image although statue plinth now slightly 'tilted' from flat. --Scotch Mist 20:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 13:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Statuette_de_La_Belle_au_bois_dormant_-_20150803_13h34_(10774).jpg[edit]

File:Statuette de La Belle au bois dormant - 20150803 13h34 (10774).jpg

  • Nomination Statue of The Sleeping Beauty with her prince at Disneyland Paris. -- Medium69 18:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy, little details --Uoaei1 05:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and unsharp. --Dirtsc 11:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 13:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Billbrookdeich_167_bis_171_15.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hamburg-Billbrook, abandoned factory area Billbrookdeich 167 --Dirtsc 13:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Oversharpened. --Jacek Halicki 16:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)  Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I tried a version with less sharpening. --Dirtsc 21:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 13:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Iguana_marina_(Amblyrhynchus_cristatus),_isla_Lobos,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-25,_DD_46.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Marine iguana (Amblyrhynchus cristatus), Las Bachas, Baltra island, Galapagos islands, Ecuador --Poco a poco 00:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose nice at preview but mostly out of focus --Christian Ferrer 15:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ New version, please, have a new look Poco a poco 17:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
      Please, let's discuss, I think that the current version deserves the QI stamp --Poco a poco 19:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I will say ok now --Christian Ferrer 05:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Die tarnung des Tieres ist gut erkennbar. --Ralf Roletschek 21:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 13:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Billbrookdeich_171_Südost.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hamburg-Billbrook, building Billbrookdeich 171, view from SE --Dirtsc 13:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry. Unsharp, halos, details missing. Something wrong with your lens? --XRay 16:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for XRay. Probably too strong noise reduction combined with oversharpening. Or the lens is not sufficiant for image resolutions above six MPixels. -- Smial 12:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 13:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Colegiata,_Medinaceli,_Soria,_España,_2015-12-28,_DD_103.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Colegiate, Medinaceli, Soria, Spain --Poco a poco 00:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment A Q1photo, only the top of the building is a bit blurred --Michielverbeek 07:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I don't think that it is surprising and I believe that it is still overall ok. Is your review a support or a decline? Poco a poco 13:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry, it is a support but not a very strong one --Michielverbeek 14:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Note: Sorry, I do not sharp enough! Like more opinions.--Famberhorst 06:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The unsharpness in the upper part is unavoidable. If you want vertical lines of the building (and they are always demanded here) the necessary perspective correction blows the upper part of the building and causes the unsharpness. --Dirtsc 07:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for Dirtsc. Such heavy perspective correction needs more downscaling to avoid unsharpness. -- Smial 12:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 13:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)