Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 11 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Rattling Run looking upstream 2.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Rattling Run, a minor tributary of Catawissa Creek. Jakec 18:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose a bit unsharp and/or blurred --Christian Ferrer 09:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    I uploaded a new version. I think nearly all of the creek is sharp now. Jakec 18:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    yes sharp, but still a bit blurred (maybe out of focus because of a small DoF) --Christian Ferrer 20:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support It can't be sharp and blurred at the same time. ;o) Yann 10:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, it can and it is IMO. 20% of the image is sharp (foreground), more sharp and it will even be oversharpened. 80% of the rest of the image is a bit blurred because the DoF is small. --Christian Ferrer 18:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose Sorry,for Christian Ferrer --Livioandronico2013 11:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Livioandronico2013 11:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Wind turbines in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania 3.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Wind turbines. Jakec 18:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support --Christian Ferrer 09:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry. The motif is corn, the wind turbines are very small. Composition could be better. And it's too soft, contrast is missing.--XRay 09:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    The wind turbines have to be small because the image is illustrating the entire row of them. Jakec 18:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is the "inverse" of the photo I took in Lancaster County. I appreciate dual nature of this photo's composition, but the entirely out of focus foreground is just distracting, rather than adding to the image, even at larger viewing distances. The corn is also a bit too tall. It would be better in July. Ram-Man 14:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Livioandronico2013 11:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination Woman of São Paulo in Pinacoteca --The Photographer 10:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeToo soft and poor lighting (contre-jour?); image tilted -- Alvesgaspar 19:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not a mistake, contre-jour and soft was done that way to give an atmosphere of antiquity. Thank you very much for your review, I would also like to hear some others. A hug --The Photographer 16:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry for the lady, but per Alvesgaspar.--Jebulon 16:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think that would work with a bit of flash. Yann 10:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Livioandronico2013 11:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination: Woman of São Paulo in Luz Station --The Photographer 10:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Review *

 Support Good quality. --Yann 07:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I disagree, thee is noise everywhere and the face is overexposed. Alvesgaspar 19:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support. QI for me. Nice photo. I can't say that it would be overexposed. -- Spurzem 12:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Absolutely per Alvesgaspar--Livioandronico2013 21:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Hockei 09:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others.--Jebulon 16:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Ram-Man 14:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • weak  Support – I’ve been staring at this image for five minutes now, trying to figure out what’s wrong with it. I think it’s the lady not interacting with the station in any way, e.g. laying her hand on a handrail. She could be sitting in front of a photograph! So it’s a bit too close-up for me. But then, this is not FPC, so composition is a minor factor here. Quality is OK, the noise is part of the retro atmosphere and fits nicely into the black/white-toning. --Kreuzschnabel 22:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Livioandronico2013 11:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Hearst_Castle_September_2012_002.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bus at Hearst Castle. --King of Hearts 05:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  CommentThe front of the bus is too dark and the shadow is disturbing. -- Spurzem 18:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Let's have it decided by consensus then. --King of Hearts 06:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a bad image at all, but not quite good enough for me per Spurzem. Also, the back edge of the bus looks a bit strange, leaning out at the top (that's no biggie for me, though). --El Grafo 11:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per El Grafo.--Jebulon 18:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Livioandronico2013 11:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Vjosa river, Albania.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination: Vjosa river, Albania --Pudelek 21:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Review  Support Good quality --Halavar 22:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, overexposed areas (sand). Wires and streetlights at bottom are disturbing. Poor resolution--Lmbuga 22:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Histogram says: no overexposed areas. QI for me --Hubertl 17:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very small, lack of contrast (in background especially the mountain), and the pole in foreground is killing the composition, the wires as well.--Jebulon 18:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Livioandronico2013 11:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Κρήνη Ριμόντι 2888.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Rimondi fountain detail, Rethymno, Crete. --C messier 17:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --XRay 18:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, CAs are improvable (see note), nothing is realy in focus IMO. Perspective distortion (see note). Overexposed areas IMO--Lmbuga 19:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
     Comment I pray that the images are (or were) reviewed more seriously--Lmbuga 19:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
     Support. QI for me! We should not be too far with complaints. -- Spurzem 19:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
     Comment I understand you, but there are improvable (correctable) serious defects, defects present in Image guidelines. Please, fix them--Lmbuga 19:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Here we have to judge about QI and not about Featured pictures. -- Spurzem 19:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Come on Spurzem,why this answers? Lmbuga is a treasure, good and accurate. I'm sorry if you get angry because to me you're a good guy, but Miguel is right.Sorry.Peace & Love. --Livioandronico2013 20:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Corrected perspective, removed CAs, framed it better. --C messier 09:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 Support Perfect. Why fight for such simple things? Now it's OK for me and I think if you could also Lmbuga say the same --Livioandronico2013 10:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 Support OK for me --The Photographer 11:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 Neutral Not perfect, the focus seems on the wall behind, not on the relief itself. But not enough for an oppose (IMO).--Jebulon 18:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 11:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Victoria_Harbour.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Victoria Harbour --The Photographer 10:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 12:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I´m really not sure, but there are to many oversaturated parts in it. It´s a one shot in a situation, were you need multiple shots with exposure bracketing --Hubertl 15:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support imo the exposure is fine --Moroder 16:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Moroder, but it is unsharp, and there are chromatic aberrations.--Jebulon 18:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Its Neon Light and not CA --The Photographer 11:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Livioandronico2013 11:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)