Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 11 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Fontanka_Embamkment_201_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fontanka Embankment in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 17:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Comment There are strong halos at the roof. --Berthold Werner 18:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Comment I've tried to fix it. --Florstein 19:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry, I'm not really convinced. --Berthold Werner 10:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment In what? Now I can't see any halos. --Florstein 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I see still one (see annotation). Maybe I'm wrong. I set it to Discuss to get more votes. --Berthold Werner 11:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@Berthold Werner: yes, I saw. Is it to discuss or not for now? --Florstein 13:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, messer Hubertl, are you sure Berthold Werner voted oppose? Is this your common practice: to think out of the others? --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    In fact, we don´t need a Consensual review, as long as there is no negative decision at all. Berthold Werner says, that there are strong halos on the roof and after your change, he said that he is not convinced about the result. Having strong, non-fixable halos on the roof indicates, that this can´t be a QI. This, together with his first decision is for me a clear contra. What more do you need? I´m dealing with this kind of ambiguities every morning since more than half a year. Using the comment-tag is only to avoid a longer discussion. Usualy, faults by comments can be fixed, but obviously not in this case. Please don´t take it personally - I never gave you any reason of beeing biased against you - It´s not easy to manage this here. If someone other says, Berthold makes a wrong decision or Berthold himself will decide differently, then the CR will be undecided. --Hubertl 10:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I understand, thank you. You're doing useful work. But I've already fixed that halos with the last edit. May be Berthold simply doesn't seen my comment. Let's see what will happen next. :) --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

 Support Good now. --Berthold Werner 13:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  •  Support --Hubertl 14:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support QI now. --SKas 10:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support With reservations. The QI criteria are met, but I could see room for improvement: (1) Try to slightly brighten the shadows on the right side of the building. (2) You may have applied a bit too much of noise-cancelling, resulting in a poor microstructure and microcontrast. Hendric Stattmann 16:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Saint Paraskevi of Iconium church, Krekhiv (04).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Paraskevi of Iconium church, Krekhiv, Ukraine.--Aeou 06:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Need perspective correction --Pudelek 11:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I made correction of the perspective, but only a little bit. This church has no vertical sides. In fact almost all main volumes - are the cropped pyramids. So there are no guidelines for exact correction.--Aeou 15:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support - I disagree that verticals should always be shown accurately as such as long as distortion is not too strong. Alvesgaspar 13:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Convinced by arguments.--Jebulon 23:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Jean11 18:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Santarém May 2015-13a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Main altar of Igreja da Graça, Santarém, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 14:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 17:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Windows are completely overexposed. --Code 05:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, I'm aware of that but there is no relevant content in the windows, other than pure light. -- Alvesgaspar 13:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the pure light ate away all structures; glass, bars and even part of the wall. Is it really surprising, that blown out windows are declined in QIC? Since I am participating as reviewer, this is a rule, that is carved in stone. --Cccefalon 13:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with opposers. It appears that window lozanges disapeared--Jebulon 23:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Jean11 18:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Anttipoffi workers' quarters in Mathildedal.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Old workers' dormitory from 1852, Mathildedal iron mill, Finland.—Kotivalo 18:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sky blown out. CA. Bad bottom crop. Too much motion blur with the motocycles. --Cccefalon 21:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Let's discuss! Ok, sky is too white but nice szene and the motion-blur is in my eyes particularly the Beautiful of this Photo -->
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 13:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I stopped listing the cardinal issues after pointing out four of them. Number five and six are: Right side leaning out and overall not sharp enough. --Cccefalon 06:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Cccefalon. --Cayambe 08:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor detail and sharpness of the subject, extensive blown area. Alvesgaspar 14:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment ok, i agree the oppose. --Ralf Roletschek 23:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per opposers.--Jebulon 23:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Imam Hussein Hadith inscription 00 (4).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Imam Hussein Hadith inscription, Al-Hussein Mosque, Cairo, Egypt.---لا روسا 05:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Шухрат Саъдиев 09:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilt/perspective issues. --C messier 15:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per C messier. Also the shadow splodge is not becoming to the image. --Cccefalon 06:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distracting shadow. Alvesgaspar 14:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per C messier and Alvesgaspar. --Pokéfan95 03:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)