Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 06 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Statue_of_Lion_in_Norcia.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of Lion in Norcia --Livioandronico2013 08:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Good quality. , but please clear the clipped parts with the jpg artefacts on the forehead --Hubertl 10:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment jpg artefacts Hubertl ? do you mean the holes? --Livioandronico2013 17:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment No, not the holes, see notes, please! White, high quality marble, especially when polished together with full sunlight is always difficult --Hubertl 19:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand...I don't see nothing...boh. Thanks. --Livioandronico2013 19:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)::: I set it to discuss. It´s a good picture, it needs more opinions.--Hubertl 20:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me --Σπάρτακος 19:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I see what Hubertl means, but it is acceptable for me.--Jebulon 22:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 06:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Rathinda amor 07772.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Rathinda amor closeup --Vengolis 12:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose No categories. Unfortunate species crop. --Cccefalon 09:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Categories fixed now. I disagree with "unfortunate crop" argument. This is purely intentional to show head details. Otherwise we end up with full body portraits only where we can capture littile details of the head. And what about head shots and tight face crops of homosapians? --Jkadavoor 02:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment To say it with Sergio Leone: We need more face details. But in cinemascope. I have nothing against a detail shot. But the cropped butterfly occupies only a small part of the upper left of the image. That's the whole truth about "unfortunate crop". --Cccefalon 20:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    I agree; here the subject is only a small part of the image. We need some intentionally tighten frames too; that's my only argument. Jkadavoor 01:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    Your example deserves the QI seal of course. --Cccefalon 09:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Cccefalon--Σπάρτακος 19:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Pagoda_Xa_Loi,_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_03.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Xa Loi Pagoda, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam --Poco a poco 19:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, converging vertical lines. --F. Riedelio 10:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment If perspective fully corrected, the building would look really distorted, and I doupt if the walls are vertical for real. But feels a bit tilted to the right. Sky could be better. --C messier 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Per C messier, if I do that, the image will be just so unrealistic that it wouldn't be acceptable Poco a poco 19:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I have to agree, the sky is a bit overexposed and it looks like the building is falling backwards. --Iifar 15:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Michael_Schumacher_2010_Malaysia_2nd_Free_Practice.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Michael_Schumacher_2010_Malaysia_2nd_Free_Practice By User:Morio --Σπάρτακος 15:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too tight crop. And: Is it a downhill race? (no need to present it with an angle) --Cccefalon 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Hi Michael... Agree with Spurzem,also is a tight crop is excellent (for F1....this car go on 300 km/h!) and the first curve in Sepang is down --Livioandronico2013 19:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment The tight crop is done here on purpose (afterwards and not due to fast driving cars). IMHO a wider crop would be much better here. --Tuxyso 20:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Tuxyso. It needs lead space/room. --C messier 11:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Fernando_Alonso_2010_Malaysia_2nd_Free_Practice.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fernando_Alonso_2010_Malaysia_2nd_Free_Practice. By User:Morio --Σπάρτακος 15:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too tight crop. And: Is it a downhill race? (no need to present it with an angle) --Cccefalon 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Spurzem,also is a tight crop is excellent (for F1....this car go on 300 km/h!) and the first curve in Sepang is down --Livioandronico2013 19:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Rubens_Barrichello_2010_Malaysia_1st_Free_Practice.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rubens_Barrichello_2010_Malaysia_1st_Free_Practice. By User:Morio --Σπάρτακος 15:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too tight crop. And: Is it a downhill race? --Cccefalon 17:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Tatsächlich dürfte der Zuschnitt ein bisschen weiter gefasst sein. Ansonsten ist es ein ausgezeichneter Mitzieher, und dass das Fahrzeug leicht schräg im Bild ist – vielleicht die Anfahrt einer Kurve? – verstärkt die Dynamik. Für mich  Support. Bitte diskutieren. -- Spurzem 17:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Spurzem,also is a tight crop is excellent (for F1....this car go on 300 km/h!) and the first curve in Sepang is down --Livioandronico2013 19:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination Main building in Harbin music theme park. by Andrei1230 --Lzy881114 01:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 01:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would agree, if the perspective is corrected. From this distance and considering the height of the building, I can expect rectilinear verticals. --Cccefalon 06:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above. --Iifar 15:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)