Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 03 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Escultura_mv_chap1612.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture by the group Verde DF, it is designed to support a vertical garden. --Cvmontuy 05:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 07:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cars in the main object are too hazy because of long exposure time, for me not a Q1 --Michielverbeek 11:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - This is a photo of the sculpture. In my opinion, so what that the cars that are whizzing by are motion-blurred? -- Ikan Kekek 23:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In my opinion should have allowed the shutter time to adjust to the moving vehicles in question. Use the proper settings. Adamdaley 05:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Michielverbeek and Adamdaley: for a subject exposed to sunlight like this one in the middle of the day, there is really no reason that I can see for using a slow shutter speed. Using that should only be done when appropriate, e.g. during low light hours or when movement blur is a desired effect. Therefore, the blurred cars are disturbing.--Peulle 21:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 09:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Moscow Vozdvizhenka18 manor 08-2016.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow: Shakhovskoy Mansion --A.Savin 11:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Blurred and not sharp enough on the left and right sides of the image. Sorry, not a QI for me --Halavar 12:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, with all due respect: I looked at the picture again, and I really fail to see any issues that would be severe enough to decline. Not perfect, but should be still OK for QI, given our applied standards. --A.Savin 14:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not sure it's an obvious QI. It would probably pass CR because it looks very good at full screen, but would you consider increasing the sharpness a bit so that it looks better at full size? -- Ikan Kekek 16:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality --Christian Ferrer 17:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, I have applied some sharpening on the sides. --A.Savin 18:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and  Support. Very good quality now. -- Ikan Kekek 22:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki 22:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't find it sharp enough, for instance the relief of CoA a the top of the pediment.--Jebulon 17:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry,per Hal e Jebulon --Livioandronico2013 17:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, a little soft in focus at the sides, but resolution is good, and it is mitigated by excellent light, exposure control and colours. -- Slaunger 22:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me --Uoaei1 08:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 15:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)