Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 27 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Rests_of_Temple_of_Diana_in_Nemi.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rests of Temple of Diana in Nemi --Livioandronico2013 21:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI -- Spurzem 22:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some parts of the photo are out of focus. Also, some parts are overexposed. --Steindy 22:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Neutral due to composition (the wire in the foreground). I fixed the overexposure and uploaded an edited version. Ram-Man 04:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The new version is better, but some problems are existing further. See my annotations. --Steindy 21:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support For the second version. Just a question, maybe you can produce an own version from raw with the same quality? ;-) --Hockei 11:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted Ram-Man 21:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Église_réformée_Saint-Martin_de_Vevey_-_10_-_vitrail_du_chœur.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Église réformée Saint-Martin de Vevey - le chœur - vitrail représentant saint Martin. --Jmh2o 16:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Two issues: Too much black (resolvable by tighter crop, see my note). Needs slight perspective correction. Please try also, if adding a little bit more sharpness is enhancing the upper part of the stained glass window. --Cccefalon 07:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Feels unsharp to me. Mattbuck 15:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks like some of the changes were done. Good enough for me. --Ram-Man 01:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp in the upper part. --Steindy 01:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp.--Jebulon 19:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, I can not make de upper part sharper. --Jmh2o 07:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined Ram-Man 21:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Rosa 'Madame Isaac Pereire'. Locatie De Kruidhof 03.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Rosa 'Madame Isaac Pereire'. Location De Kruidhof.
    Famberhorst 06:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 07:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The image is overexposed, especially the rose. --Ram-Man 20:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support A very little bit but sure ok for me --Livioandronico2013 13:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hockei 18:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support. Overexposed? -- Spurzem 22:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ram-Man. Yes, overexposed. The red channel on the rose is blown, that’s why the edges look so blueish. The sky is widely blown and posterized, too. Not a QI for me. Better lighting required. --Kreuzschnabel 13:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with the opposers Alvesgaspar 17:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose posterization --Carschten 13:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others --Lmbuga 14:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. New version.--Famberhorst 18:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days Ram-Man 14:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Monumento_a_la_Independencia,_México_D.F.,_México,_2014-10-13,_DD_22.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Independence Monument, Mexico City, Mexico --Poco a poco 18:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose This is better than this picture, except for the very strange light ghosts that really detract from the image. Others may find the people ghosts distracting as well. Ram-Man 13:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    •  Question Are you rejecting because of the ghots? The are not relevant versus the size of the subject IMHO Poco a poco 22:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Not the ghosts, they are just an additional factor, but I know that some reviewers are bothered by it even more than I am. Ram-Man 12:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Do you mind if we discuss it. I thing this decline is pretty tough --Poco a poco 21:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Question Isn't the picture leaning to the left? Or does it just seem so? Concerning the ghosts according to my opinion they are no reason for declining a promotion. However, there are some strange light effects with the lamps - they look like firing laser beams. Did they move during the exposure? --Code 18:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The strange lights are what I called "light ghosts". Perhaps laser beams is more accurate. They are also on the point sources of light in the background buildings, and they don't all point in the same direction. It seems like it is a strange lens artifact. Ram-Man 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 11:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose blown whites, strange looking statue on the top of the column (blown whites, posterization?). --Carschten 15:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed Alvesgaspar 17:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 12:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined Ram-Man 14:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Benkoka_Sabah_Jetty-at-Dataran-Benkoka-Pitas-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Benkoka, Sabah: Jetty at the resthouse at Dataran Benkoka Pitas --Cccefalon 04:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Crisco 1492 05:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Its completely overexposed. --Hubertl 07:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    Needless to say, I disagree. There is considerable detail even in the clouds. Looks more like a somewhat misty day. Crisco 1492 08:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    It's extremely overexposed. Check the histogram. Ram-Man 12:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    It was intended as feather-light depiction of the morning at Marudu Bay. I should have foreseen, that only a gaussian histo will be expected here ... anyway, I ✓ reworked it. --Cccefalon 14:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support the new version. Ram-Man 21:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Livioandronico2013 17:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough: the blue channel is near the limit but not really blown -- Alvesgaspar 17:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Pro with the new version --Hubertl 15:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted Ram-Man 14:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Münchenstein_-_Grün80-Park_-_Seismosaurus2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dinosaur at Grün 80 --Taxiarchos228 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Composition: Tail is cut off. --Ram-Man 02:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    tail isn't presentable because it´s behind the brushwood, beside of this I see no valid reason against QI. --Taxiarchos228 22:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support. I would like to see the complete tail too. But it should not be a reason to decline this image. -- Spurzem 20:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Ram-Man. Not only the tail is cut off (no matter the reason) but the composition looks unbalanced. Alvesgaspar 17:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
    •  Comment I agree. Would look balanced IMHO if the rightmost 40 percent are cropped off. But then, the head is unsharp. --Kreuzschnabel 12:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tail cropped is a reason to decline: The picture is taked from behind, it's not a portrait or close-up. Left area (head) is unsharp --Lmbuga 17:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined Ram-Man 14:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Intern_of_Church_of_St._John_of_the_Malva_in_Trastevere.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Intern of Church of St. John of the Malva in Trastevere --Livioandronico2013 20:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Underexposed, low contrast, and a little noise. --Ram-Man 03:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Ok now Ram-Man? --Livioandronico2013 09:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    I like the original better. This white balance is not great. And the image is underexposed regardless. Ram-Man 12:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    Ok Ram-Man,last chance. Better now? --LivioAndronico talk 14:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    So, I modified it to brighten it up and increase the contrast. Not too much, but it pops much more now. This is what I had in mind. Ram-Man 23:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    The last,if don't work I surrender --Livioandronico2013 13:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
     Support Ram-Man 15:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy (surprising because of ISO 100), low sharpness. --Carschten 15:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • weak  Support Enough for me. --Hockei 18:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and unsharp. Alvesgaspar 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Enough for me --The Photographer 18:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 23:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)