Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 19 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:20140707 Radkersburg - ceramic liquor barrel used in marching bands (Gombocz collection) - H4209.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Household item (Gombocz Collection), Radkersburg --Hubertl 15:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Bgag 16:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Unsufficiant description: "Miscellaneous" --Smial 18:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I agree, it was really not sufficient. Wheather the file name, nor the description. But fixed now!--Hubertl 09:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 01:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   Issues were fixed. No objections. Treating this as a normal promote and closing quickly. Ram-Man 12:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Άγιος Δημήτριος Αυλωνάρι 5564.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination The byzantine church of Saint Demetrius at Avlonari, central Euboea, Greece. --C messier 16:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 17:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  OpposeSorry but I desagree,the lower part of the picture is totally blurred. Need a crop. --Livioandronico2013 21:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The church is the main object and this is okay. Good quality. --Steindy 22:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support as others. --Hubertl 23:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Motion blur. -- Smial 08:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done cropped the blurry path. --C messier 11:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Now the composition is out of balance, but I will not be nitpicking, so  Neutral -- Smial 19:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 18:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Mercedes Citaro G n°961 Villejean Université.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Autobus articulé à Rennes brève --Billy69150 13:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status --Christian Ferrer 19:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment The author is a Wikimedian. --Kvardek du 09:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed --Christian Ferrer 11:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The coach itself is only slightly overexposed but a blown sky is a no-go on QI. --Kreuzschnabel 09:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --C messier 18:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Hammarby_sjöstad_2013_06.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Buildings in the residential area in Hammarby sjöstad, Stockholm (2013). --Jopparn 18:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Please check your image. It needs perspective correction.--XRay 10:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Comment Fixed! Thank you for pointing it out. Jopparn 23:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry. Better, but IMO still not fixed.--XRay 09:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Hi again! I tried one last time now :-). Jopparn 09:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
     Comment IMO still not fixed. Please look at the building at the right and at the left. They should be vertical. May be another review would be helpful.--XRay 17:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Question Jopparn, do you have a technical problem to solve this problem? Gimp has a special tool to fix it!--Hubertl 12:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I made the correction. its QI now for me. --Hubertl 13:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Jopparn, If you need some technical help, don't hesitate to ask anyone here! --Hubertl 13:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
      •  Comment Hi Hubertl, thank you for the offer and thank you for the vote.
When changing the perspective I looked at the rainwater pipe on the building in the middle (and that was perfectly straight in the last version I uploaded). The technical part with Gimp is not an issue, but I must admit that I am unsure what part to focus on when adjusting the perspective. Best, Jopparn 00:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
In this case, the optical problem was primarily on the right side. You tilted the picture, there were some white edges, I did it with the PS transformation tool. --Hubertl 01:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK now. Thanks Hubertl.--XRay 17:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 18:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Gamo_persa_(Dama_mesopotamica),_Tierpark_Hellabrunn,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2012-06-17,_DD_01.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Persian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica), Tierpark Hellabrunn, Munich, Germany. By User:Poco a poco --Christian Ferrer 05:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Very special. --Johann Jaritz 07:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose I would like to discuss this. It looks overprocessed, especially the background, and there are some CAs. --Uoaei1 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded Poco a poco 19:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Big improvement for the trunk. –Be..anyone 03:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:140819_Schwedter_Steg_sw.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bridge "Schwedter Steg" in Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg. --Code 06:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment It doesn't feel quite level to me. Mattbuck 17:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lighting, exposure, and focus and DOF are good. While I perceive a tilt, I think it is an illusion caused by the shadows. The post at the end of the bridge is vertical. I think putting the camera very near the centerline of the bridge is an unfortunate choice. Since the subject is symmetric, our attention is drawn to the asymmetric elements, the shadows and the background. These detract from the subject. Also, most of the information about the subject that is conveyed by the left half of the frame is duplicated by the right. --Wsiegmund 16:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Question @Wsiegmund: Thank you very much for the review. It's not that I wouldn't accept your decline but I set this on discussion because after having read your review I don't really understand your decision. Could you eventually summarize which quality problem you see with this picture? Is it the composition? Thank you in advance. --Code 09:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment My primary concern is the composition of the image. "The arrangement of the elements within the image should support depiction of the subject, not distract from it." Please see COM:I. That is the essence of my earlier comments. I'm sorry I was unclear. This was a difficult review for me because many aspects of the image are good. I would welcome the thoughts of others. --Wsiegmund 16:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you very much, now I understand. Yes, this is certainly not an easy picture. --Code 16:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support After I've supported the colored version, I would not support this photo because I like the color version better. Nevertheless me the photo is too good to be deselected. After otherwise find no raters, therefore I consent. I like this view and it's good quality for me. --Steindy 15:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the review, Steindy. I thought this picture would work better in black/white. Gerade die Schatten und Strukturen finde ich schwarzweiß eigentlich spannender, als in Farbe. Aber da kann man natürlich unterschiedlicher Auffassung sein. Deshalb wollte ich beides ausprobieren. --Code 22:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Are two versions of the same photo eligible for QI status? Well in this case, the B&W image is enough of a different picture for me. It's also the superior of the two. Ram-Man 17:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)