Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 05 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Port de Cherbourg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Port of Cherbourg. --Mith 20:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Ok. --ArildV 11:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    Posterised. --Mattbuck 22:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose As per Mattbuck. Also, the overall quality does not represent the abilities of the camera. For me it looks more, as if a coloured photo of bad quality was turned to b/w in the fruitless hope, to enhance the quality. --Cccefalon 08:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Massive oversharpening. Also rather noisy. -- Smial 08:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Cccefalon 05:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_Flora-Köln-00.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: "Flora Köln" after general refurbishment --Cccefalon 08:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Posterisation in the flowers, generally dark. --Mattbuck 22:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    Dark??? Sorry, today I really doubt your expertise. --Cccefalon 04:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Me too, however I see 1 or 2 dustspots (see notes) --Christian Ferrer 11:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done removed, thank you. --Cccefalon 15:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 20:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • weak  Support Blown red channel and oversharpening on the foreground flowers, still very good on the structure itself --Kreuzschnabel 19:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 05:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Lahad-Datu_Sabah_Guan-Yin-Temple-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lahad Datu, Sabah: Guan Yin Temple. --Cccefalon 19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline

 Oppose Left side not that sharp, red aliasing. --Mattbuck 22:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I ask a third opinion. --Cccefalon 03:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strange red fringing and pixelisation, see the rightmost two windows, or the right edge of building. Looks like a blown red channel to me, or maybe this megazoom lens couldn’t cope with that intense colours at f/10. --Kreuzschnabel 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks overprocessed with bad correction of CA, too much noise reduction and somewhat too high colour saturation. -- Smial 14:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 05:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)