Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 05 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:16-11-15-Alexander_Thomson_Hotel_Glasgow-RR2_7093.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Alexander Thomson Hotel Glasgow --Ralf Roletschek 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I disagree. Too grainy. -- Ikan Kekek 06:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above --A.Savin 10:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 22:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Norderney,_Leuchtturm_--_2016_--_5350.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lighthouse on Norderney, Lower Saxony, Germany --XRay 05:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not for me. Charlesjsharp 13:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like it needs perspective correction, unless those posts actually do lean. The tower itself looks fine to me. It's a tower in fog, which is a perfectly good thing to take a photo of. XRay, please comment on the posts. -- Ikan Kekek 05:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I can comment the posts, yes. But I don't know the question? Do you think the tower is tilted? IMO another perspective correction is not a good way. It's just worm's eye view. --XRay 16:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The tower looks OK to me. It's the much lower-down posts I'm asking about. Did they lean in real life? -- Ikan Kekek 22:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The image is sharp, well exposed, no CA or other technical issues. Good composition. The perspective is obviously intended. --Smial 09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective correction doesn't make sense in this case. QI for me.--Ermell 20:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Overcategorized.--Peulle 23:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually not, i.e. it does not have redundancies as we know from COM:OVERCAT. --A.Savin 04:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to go — some noise, but the loss of quality is not severe enough to decline (IMO). --A.Savin 04:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, noise, perspective distortion make sense in this case for me (In many cases the photographers can not fly. In those cases we do not pretend that our photos are IQ), clarity, contrast--Lmbuga 17:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but there is little quality here. Alvesgaspar 23:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support as Smial --Ralf Roletschek 23:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 22:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)