Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 18 2014

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Rizhsky_Avenue_SPB_01.jpg

[edit]

File:London MMB »0Q1 Wood Wharf, Kamalaya and Millennium Dome.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yacht Kamalaya at Wood Wharf. Mattbuck 06:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeLens halo. --MB-one 10:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  CommentGiven the halo was intentional in this shot, I'd like another opinion please. --Mattbuck 00:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Always oppose to the artistic shots,here. Anyway the lights are too strong. --Livioandronico2013 08:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support. Interesting lighting. QI for me. -- Spurzem 21:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --LC-de 13:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-00-wlm-es-RalfR-08 Barcelona Estació de França.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Barcelona Estació de França, train station in Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. --Ralf Roletschek 21:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - Fails the "meaningful" filename criteria. --Mattbuck 20:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    Name OK now. --Yann 10:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    OK, but the image is not QI on technical merits - very bad chromatic noise. Mattbuck 18:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, a lot of noise, which looks like it was then sharpened in PP, giving the image a mottled appearance, see the back wall, and especially the clock, but the problem exists throughout most of the image. --Generic1139 14:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --LC-de 11:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-00-wlm-es-RalfR-04_Aqueduct_in_Cerdanyola_del_Vallès,_Catalonia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aqueduct in Cerdanyola del Vallès, Catalonia --Ralf Roletschek 21:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose - Fails the "meaningful" filename criteria. --Mattbuck 20:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    Name OK now. --Yann 10:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    OK, but this image is not QI on technical merits either - extremely noisy, visible dust spots, bad composition (occluding tree), posterisation. Mattbuck 18:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition and lighting is ok, in all other respects overprocessed. Mattbuck is apart from the criticism of the composition right. -- Smial 20:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --LC-de 11:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:St Pancras railway station MMB J4 43047.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 43047 at St Pancras. Mattbuck 09:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion sorry, should be sharper-Johanning 16:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Sharpened. Mattbuck 09:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
     Comment Thanks, but I am not completely convinced (see left side of elevator), so I leave the decision to others -Johanning 19:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 04:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Livioandronico2013 16:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    Could you explain what you find lacking? Mattbuck 19:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    Sure,not enough sharp --Livioandronico2013 22:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support I can not understand the criticism from Livioandronico2013. Of course QI. --Steindy 22:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Steindy learn to respect the other opinion,if for you is good i respect your decision.Here all have a different opinion (if you dont't noticed).Thanks. --Livioandronico2013 08:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Dear Livioandronico2013, and you learn to respect, the work of other user. First, you give a contra without notice. On demand you answer „sure, not enough sharp“. I do not see the best of intentions, what should it focus. The relevant elements of the platform, and the roof of the train and is ready to everything sharp. Thanks too! --Steindy 17:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Steindy respect for you would be to put a positive at all? You have not yet figured out that if one has an opinion different from yours does not really have bad intentions or that it is bad, but it has another opinion. For you it's all clear? ok FOR ME NO! How can I make you understand just do not know. Furthermore, the user has asked me to explain and I promptly replied , then ???? I tell you:respect the opinions of others and be more humble --Livioandronico2013 19:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Livioandronico2013 Then they say specifically what it is out of focus. I have found nothing that supported your statement. Nothing else I've said. --Steindy 19:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @SteindyFor me, as for Johanning, it is not enough sharp (see on the left and the lift). I never said that is not in focus, or is terrible.I don't understand all this, not even the person concerned complained that much and you're doing it a crusade.If so for each photo would be a war. --Livioandronico2013 19:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Boring, but within QI limits... -- Smial 21:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --LC-de 11:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Dalian_Liaoning_China_Cablecar-02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dalian Liaoning China: Cablecar between new and old zoo of Dalian --Cccefalon 12:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the image is somewhat whitewashed. PointsofNoReturn 20:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't know, what you mean with "whitewashed". Too much white? - the histo says no. It's easy to accept a decline, if there is a photographic reason, but I need more than just a new buzzword. --Cccefalon 13:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
      •  Comment Don't rely only on histograms, as they in most cases don't show very small areas of overexposure. There are some in that image. Also not very sharp in the upper parts. Low DOF? Or perspective corrected? -- Smial 20:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --LC-de 11:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Cooped_up_Fishing_ships_in_the_harbour_of_Lauwersoog_during_the_5-6_december_2013_storm_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cooped up Fishing ships in the harbour of Lauwersoog during the 5-6 december 2013 storm --Uberprutser 18:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Sorry, but the image is not 2 Megapixels --PointsofNoReturn 19:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support PointsofNoReturn the picture is almost 4Mpx,check better next time,thanks. --Livioandronico2013 20:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jebulon 19:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 17:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural color of the sea IMO. The plants of the bottom (foreground) are disturbing. Jpeg artifacts IMO (see note)--Lmbuga 17:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry, Lmbuga, this is not the atlantic ocean and not mediterranian sea, this is Waddenzee, the colour is absolutely natural especially on windy days or after a storm ;-) -- Smial 19:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks--Lmbuga 21:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --LC-de 09:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Berwick-upon-Tweed railway station MMB 09 221120.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 221120 at Berwick. Mattbuck 11:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeInsufficient quality.Unsharp,especially on the right. --Livioandronico2013 19:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Mattbuck 19:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand why you delete the note of Livioandronico2013--Lmbuga 17:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I'm agree with the deleted note of Livioandronico2013 (visible in the history of the file). It's not QI for me, sorry--Lmbuga 17:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry Lmbuga,but you are agree o disagree? I don't understand --Livioandronico2013 19:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry,now understand --Livioandronico2013 07:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Somewhat low DOF, but the train's front as main subject is sharp. --Smial 19:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --LC-de 09:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Lądek-Zdrój,_park_zdrojowy_08.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Spa gardens in Lądek-Zdrój --Jacek Halicki 23:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Please ahave a look to my notes. IMO there are overexposed areas. And please add an english description.--XRay 06:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 10:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Put to Discussion for mentioned issues. --P e z i 11:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support The upper side (1/5 of the picture) is a bit blurry, but QI for me. Crop? --Lmbuga 17:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support as for lmbuga. -- Smial 19:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --LC-de 09:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Gródek_brama_cerkiewna_632844.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gate of orthodox church in Gródek (Poland, podlaskie voivodeship). By User:AndyTheVine --Winiar 18:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The edges are leaning in. Mattbuck 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 10:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Put to Discussion for mentioned issues. --P e z i 11:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Reddish CA on both sides of the gate. --Halavar 11:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Reddish CA, perspective. And I am surprised, that clearly visible CA is "good quality". --Cccefalon 04:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It needs perspective correction. Too dark. CAs. Why 1/2,000 sec? Is it a random file? --Lmbuga 17:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Slight leaning is imo not disturbing. CA is very, VERY small. If this small amount is a reason to decline, we have to remove probably 80% of all QI until now. Btw: There is of course also some greenish CA. Did you not see? -- Smial 20:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --LC-de 09:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Podziemna_trasa_turystyczna_w_Kłodzku_26.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination City tunnels tourist route in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 08:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 07:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed areas --Christian Ferrer 08:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Christian Ferrer --MB-one 20:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --LC-de 14:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Paris,_Notre_Dame_--_2014_--_1494.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of the roof of Notre-Dame, Paris, France --XRay 06:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Rather green. Mattbuck 22:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline ✓ Fixed Thanks. It's not easy to see.--XRay 08:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, I'm not convinced this is QI. Mattbuck 21:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Let's ask for another opion.--XRay 07:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Weak  Support I've seen worse --Livioandronico2013 08:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  •  Support. Why should it not be QI? -- Spurzem 21:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because the spire is really too dark, and above all, the right pinnacle is leaning in too strongly.--Jebulon 19:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC) (correction:seen the spire today twice, and it is really dark...--Jebulon 21:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC))
  •  Oppose Per Jebulon. Too too dark--Lmbuga 17:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --LC-de 09:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)