Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 13 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Frieda-Noedl-Hof Tafel DSC 0569w.jpg[edit]

File:Munsterkerk_Roermond_2014.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Munsterkerk (Roermond) --Tuxyso 10:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Church is obscured by gazebo. Image slightly tilted.--Peulle 12:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, but this is no serious rationale for decline. The "gazebo" fits well into the ensemble. Let's discuss. --Tuxyso 12:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Yes, I still feel that since the church is the main feature of the image, it should be more prominent and not be obscured by an object in front. Second opinion needed, please.--Peulle 13:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
     Comment I don't see a quality issue besides the description which is essential component of the QI promotion. I will support with a more appropriate description and categorization --Moroder 18:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Tuxyso 21:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
     Support Also the bandstand needs to be categorized imo since it's a main subject of the picture --Moroder 21:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Joydeep 08:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB «W6 Canary Wharf.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Canary Wharf. Mattbuck 06:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose too dark --A.Savin 10:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    Intentionally so - I wanted the sky to stand out. Mattbuck 22:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

File:NSG_Tannbüel-8495.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lady's-slipper orchid (Cypripedium calceolus), Nature reserve Tannbüel, Bargen, canton of Schaffhausen, Switzerland --DKrieger 21:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Clipping yellow (details lost) --Iifar 06:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    New version from RAW --DKrieger 15:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    Much better, but imo f/5 was not enough. --Iifar 18:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Örebro_på_cykel_(60).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Medborgarhuset. Community centre in Örebro, Sweden, built in 1957-65. Architects: Erik and Tore Ahlsén. --Einarspetz 13:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
    Leaning in on the right. Mattbuck 19:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good light and composition.--Peulle 13:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose per Mattbuck and chromatic aberrations --A.Savin 22:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Madame Nobel - film set at the Embassy of France in Vienna May 2014 27.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination On the film set of "Madame Nobel", Vienna --Tsui 16:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
    There's too much in this photo which is rather distracting. Sure you have the one pretty girl looking at you, but the rest have their backs turned and then there's the guy with the fag packet.... Mattbuck 23:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    So much going on is the point of the picture, a bunch of background actors waiting on the set - with one face towards us as the eye-catcher (and cigarettes aren't really a criterion for exclusion here I think). --Tsui 08:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    Not sure; one the one hand, the shot shows the activity on the set, on the other hand, there is no real subject at hand. Technically good, a couple of things out of foucs. Leaning toward no.--Peulle 14:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many distracting details. --Till.niermann 11:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB «36 City Canal.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination City Canal, London. Mattbuck 08:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose too harsh cast shadows, and problematic crop imo --A.Savin 10:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    I'd like another opinion please. --Mattbuck 19:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Problematic crop; the ships should be the main focus and as it is, two are cropped out. Otherwise good quality.--Peulle 11:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    It wasn't an option really, as then I'd just have the same problem with the ships behind those. Mattbuck 22:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you bright a bit the shadows please? --Christian Ferrer 17:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Mattbuck 22:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. --P e z i 18:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Really can't find any problems with crop or shadows. Good composition with interesting lighting and accetable sharpness. -- Smial 21:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Barred Grass Snake (Natrix helvetica), Otmoor, Oxfordshire.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Grass snake (natrix natrix) --Charlesjsharp 20:12, 29 May May 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Subject partly obscured by foreground leaves. --Mattbuck 23:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Second opinion please as to whether the reed detracts from the image of a wild animal --Charlesjsharp 16:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC) I think it does, given that one of the reeds is blocking the view of the snake.--Peulle 11:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

 CommentI like the way the creature's head is framed by that grassy triangle. Could the leftmost third be cropped? --Till.niermann 11:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Have cropped to 2x1 rather than 1.5x1. Is that what you are requesting? Can't crop any other way otherwise as some of the snake would be removed. --Charlesjsharp 13:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Franziskuskapelle Marburg 02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chapel ruin in Marburg. --Hydro 21:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tilted on right (+perspectives), blown sky at right --Christian Ferrer 11:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good use of light and the ruin is the main focus of the image.--Peulle 11:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Christian. --P e z i 14:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed. --Siipikarja 13:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

File:30th_St._Moritz_Polo_World_Cup_on_Snow_-_20140202_-_BMW_vs_Deutsche_Bank_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 30th St. Moritz Polo World Cup on Snow - 20140202 - BMW vs Deutsche Bank --Pleclown 11:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Random composition/ --Mattbuck 20:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment unconventional but not bad, certainly not distracting enough to decline QI for me unless other more pressing problems are present. The players are following the ball that's visible in the image. --Pitke 01:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop is too tight for this composition to work. --Siipikarja 12:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

File:2008-05-25 13 45 35 Iceland-Þingvellir.jpg[edit]

@Reykholt you must attribute the photographer --A.Savin 11:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose chromatic aberrations on shadows --A.Savin 11:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support The CA seems very slight or even nonexistent to me. Jakec 13:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jacek. --Cayambe 09:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With only 3 MPix the CA problem should have been dealt with. -- Smial 06:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice pic but poor detail and strong chromatic aberration in the lower right on the branches. Today I expect a QIC of only 3 megapixels to be crisp sharp (even if taken 6 years ago). --Kreuzschnabel 16:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose chromatic aberration. --Siipikarja 11:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Cayambe 09:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Core_Banks_-_Green_Anole_-_1.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Animals of Core Banks, North Carolina: Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis) --Jarekt 18:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 15:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Detail lost due to channel overexposure. --Mattbuck 21:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Mattbuck, plus tip of tail cut off. --Kreuzschnabel 16:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)