Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 06 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Mezger-Marter-9263736.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mezger Marter in Bamberg Bug --Ermell 20:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment tilted ccw, sharpness could be better. --Hubertl 02:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 06:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I just wanted to clear it the short way, now I have to oppose it. This was´nt necessary, Lothar! --Hubertl 15:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • He does not "support". Actually, he "opposes" your "oppose" in order to make a point...as often.--Jebulon 22:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad perspective, tilted ccw. -- Smial 10:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, no chance to get that pole better.--Ermell 19:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Mezger-Marter-9263738.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mezger Marter Bug --Ermell 20:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment tilted cw, sharpness could be better. --Hubertl 02:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 06:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until the tilt is corrected. It is not useful, to overrule each other, Lothar! --Hubertl 15:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Please excuse me. I overlooked the criticism. -- Spurzem 20:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
No problem, Lothar! --Hubertl 17:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The pole itself is tilted. Slight perspective correction could be demanded, but is not really necessary. --Smial 10:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

File:St._Andreas_(Babenhausen)_Standing_crucifix.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Standing crucifix with main high altar, featuring a similar crucifix, in the background inside St. Andreas of Babenhause, Bavaria. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 15:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Neutral For me the image is too bright and I would prefer a tighter crop. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 21:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
     Comment The Background is bright, b/c the exposure is masured with a lightmeter (not the camera internal "greyscaleguesser") at the main subject. Same goes for the details in the background in the image to the right.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 00:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed with several blown highlights in essential areas. -- Smial 15:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Uploaded a new Version. Removed remaining green chromatic aberration and lowered the highlights further to reduce the false impression of blown highlights.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 18:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Please do not feel attacked, but there is no false impression, but still highlight clipping in red channel, see temporary file version. -- Smial 15:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
      • How did you come up with this image? I can't fix / prevent stuff I can't see.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 21:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 05:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Aloe marlothii (Aloès de montagne) - 90.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aloe marlothii au jardin botanique de Lyon, France. --Medium69 09:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 07:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop is not really optimal, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 08:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I can not improve the framing of the image.--Medium69 22:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, I have to agree with Poco.--Jebulon 22:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Dosen't rock my boat but it's still a QI for me.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject is sharp. 'Not optimal' implies that that the crop can be better and I don't think that is the case. -- RaboKarbakian 05:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)