Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 03 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Tiset_kirke_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tiset Church --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
     Comment It's a good picture, but see notes please: vertical lines are not stright, and little CAs--Lmbuga 16:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    Fixed perspectiv and CA --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion {{o}} Better, but CAs (see notes). The bottom left is darker. Improvable. Let's discuss--Lmbuga 18:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    I have uploaded a new version and it looks better! --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better--Lmbuga 15:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

File:2014 Zieleniec, kościół św. Anny 05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Anne church in Zieleniec --Jacek Halicki 22:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Unnatural colours --Uoaei1 19:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion the colors are fine. I don't see why this image shouldn't be a QI --Halavar 20:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support: No problem with the colours to my eyes. Quality image. --DAJF 09:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support The cables crossing are a shame and the colours a bit on the cold side IMHO, but that’s a matter of taste. --Kreuzschnabel 19:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --DAJF 09:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Church_of_St._Laurence,_Seale_front.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Church of St. Laurence, Seale. --Lewis Hulbert 14:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Maybe a little dark but still qi for me. --Leviathan1983 15:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Yes too dark (underexposed ?)--Jebulon 17:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    Is that better? --Lewis Hulbert 18:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    For me, yes. Overall sharpness could be better but as I wrote, still qi for me. Jebulon, others...? --Leviathan1983 18:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support i think, it can be dark. --Ralf Roletschek 14:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks like a quality image now. --DAJF 01:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --DAJF 01:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

File:2014 Zieleniec, kościół św. Anny 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Anne church in Zieleniec --Jacek Halicki 22:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Unnatural colours --Uoaei1 19:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
     Support The colours look fine to me. I would be happy to see this promoted as a quality image. --DAJF 04:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 10:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Halavar 11:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support On my screen the colours are fine, QI --DKrieger 15:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --DAJF 01:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

File:2014 Zieleniec, kościół św. Anny 02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Anne church in Zieleniec --Jacek Halicki 22:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Unnatural colours. --Uoaei1 19:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC
     Support The colours look fine to me. I would be happy to see this promoted as a quality image. --DAJF 04:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC))
  •  Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 05:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Halavar 11:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --DKrieger 16:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --DAJF 01:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

File:2014 Zieleniec, kościół św. Anny 04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Anne church in Zieleniec --Jacek Halicki 22:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality --Halavar 00:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree, unnatural colours --Uoaei1 19:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
     Support The colours look fine to me. I would be happy to see this promoted as a quality image. --DAJF 04:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 05:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --DKrieger 16:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --DAJF 01:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Kreta_-_Iraklion_-_Agios_Minas_Kathedrale5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Iraklion: Agios Minas cathedral (detail) --Taxiarchos228 06:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)  Comment Imo correction of vertical lines makes it look better --Moroder 07:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Not done. --Mattbuck 16:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    will be corrected soon --Taxiarchos228 08:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    correction done --Taxiarchos228 21:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 06:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better --Moroder 10:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lmbuga 20:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Taxiarchos228 19:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Bahnhof_Saalfeld-Saale_2013.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Train station Saalfeld (Saale), Thuringia, Germany. --Indeedous 20:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    Please sharpen, and also maybe crop on the left. Mattbuck 23:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
    done --Indeedous 21:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Sorry, I'm not convinced, let's send this to discussion. Mattbuck 17:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Problem with the edge, perhaps after overexposing underexposing the sky (see note)--Lmbuga 20:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree that the picture could be better cropped to remove the unsightly wasteland and dominating trees on the left. --DAJF 09:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --DAJF 09:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Canon-FarodaBarra.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cañon en el faro de la Barra, Salvador de Bahía, Brasil --Ezarate 21:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline The right border shows a leftover from untilting operation. However, the perspective is still not correct (see windows). There is CA and the background shows traces of overprocessing (see green door). --Cccefalon 20:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ezarate 17:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, my issues are not yet properly resolved. I made annotations. And please leave replies to a review always on the QI site, instead of the reviewers talk page :) --Cccefalon 17:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ezarate 20:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks fine now. Good quality image. --DAJF 14:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The perspective issue on the left is still unsolved. DAJF, you should not ignore serious issues that are already raised by another reviewer. --Cccefalon 06:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Struck out earlier comment and oppose, as I see that the left-hand side is still not perpendicular. --DAJF 01:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --DAJF (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Puente_de_la_Margineda,_Santa_Coloma,_Andorra,_2013-12-30,_DD_03.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Puente de la Margineda, Santa Coloma, Andorra --Poco a poco 15:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose - blurred --Moroder 23:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    Can we look for a third opinion? --Poco a poco 22:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Main subject is in focus and overall image conforms to QI standards. --Nino Verde 11:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Sorry, but the blur top corners is disqualifying. Mattbuck 22:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ New version with top corners cropped out Poco a poco 07:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 10:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isiwal 21:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lmbuga 04:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Poco a poco 22:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)