Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 30 2013

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2013_Iggingen_Bildstock.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wayside shrine near Iggingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. The inscription says, "Mary and beloved child / give your blessings to us all". --Kreuzschnabel 14:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 14:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose completely blown at the top, no QI for me, sorry --A.Savin 17:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose as A.Savin --P e z i 21:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 07:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

File:London November 2013-7.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Victoria Tower, palace of Westminster, London -- Alvesgaspar 23:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose While the depicted buildings are of good quality, I have to complain the composition. The dark parts are far too big and they distract from the principal theme of this photography. I suggest to re-crop the photo in portrait format and omit a big part of the dark areas. --Cccefalon 11:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC) -- Well, I like it this way. I you open the image in full size the darker parts will show its details. Moving to CR. -- Alvesgaspar 14:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Please brighten a bit the shadows, it is the afternoon but it's much more dark than in my picture witch is taken after sunset --Christian Ferrer 11:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose After another look, the parts in shadows are underexposed --Christian Ferrer 11:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 08:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Talmont-sur-Gironde_17_Photographie_mariage_2013.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Newlyweds being photographed around golden hour, before the church of Talmont-sur-Gironde, Charente-Maritime, France. --JLPC 18:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose I understand and like the idea of taking a photo of the photographer. But the flashlight in the faces of the couple is a compository faux-pas. No QI for me. --Cccefalon 17:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    Maybe it's a joke ? Anyway, we don't have the same sense of humour... and of composition. CR. --JLPC 23:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, CR is a good idea. --Cccefalon 23:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support There is no flash, only a now I understand! beautiful light, composition and crop are good, QI for me --Christian Ferrer 07:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support goood! --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment though I'm not sure about the white balance. What I'm expecting to be white is not really white...--Jebulon 00:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment The corrected file still exists but, though I'm not a fan of the "golden hour", I thought the warm tones, (visible, you're right, at 19.40 PM on the 3rd of September) of this one were more in accordance with the subject and... the stones. Matter of taste ? --JLPC 09:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support no comment :-) --P e z i 23:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, convinced by answer. Thanks.--Jebulon 11:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 07:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Fountains Abbey MMB 16.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fountains abbey. Mattbuck 16:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline

 Oppose Too dark. Also tilted and has perspective problem. --Smial 13:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not tilted, horizontals are horizontal. I've corrected the perspective and mildly brightened it, but it was a miserable day and I feel the light level is appropriate. Mattbuck 16:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Sorry for the miserable day but it's also blurred --Moroder 10:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 08:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Lijiang_Yunnan_Doors-_in-old-town-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ornamented wooden doors in the UNESCO world heritage site of Lijiang, Yunnan, China --Cccefalon 18:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support QI --P e z i 21:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC): OpposeI'm not a fan of the crop below (disturbing the composition IMO), and I need other opinions, please--Jebulon 10:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done added more bottom parts and uploaded the new version. --Cccefalon 23:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 20:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Fishing vessel, Sète, Hérault 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fishing vessel, Sète, France. --Christian Ferrer 06:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
 OpposeI know it is the end of the afternoon, when the blues prevail, but I think it is too much. I suggest brightening the picture a bit and correcting the temperature. -- Alvesgaspar 10:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Christian Ferrer 12:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support  Comment The new version is solving the problem. QI for me. Alvesgaspar, if you think I am wrong, please switch back to Discussion. --Cccefalon 14:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
-- Independently of you being right or not, I don't think this is a good ideia because I might not look at this nomination again. Thus, back to "Discuss"
Ok, no problem. --Cccefalon 16:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cccefalon 20:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --P e z i 20:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 20:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Almonds_macro_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Macro photo of californian almonds --Dschwen 00:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality. --Ralf Roletschek 04:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose even the area around the focus point is totally unsharp, not to mention the whole rest. --A.Savin 20:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • This is a twenty megapixel image. Even if you insist on pixel peeping at 100% your assessment is still unfair, I see plenty of very sharp areas in the picture. --Dschwen 17:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The DOF is too shallow. Only the almond with the grey spots is a little bit sharp. But still not sharp enough to be the eye catcher. Sorry, not QI for me. --Cccefalon 23:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 20:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:2013.08.04.-05-Ladenburg-Hauhechel-Blaeuling-Maennchen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hauhechel-Bläuling - Polyommatus icarus, Männchen (male) --Hockei 21:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Crop too tight -- Alvesgaspar 10:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Nothing cut off. --Smial 13:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support It is not too tight. The composition is still balanced. --Cccefalon 22:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion, it's a good composition, if closer than this, it could appear as a "catalog" picture. --Fulvio314 10:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree with Alvesgaspar. It is not too tight. Mathieudu68 16:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture and not cropped to tight -- Achim Raschka 13:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Parlament Wien-DSC 0238w.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Austrian Parliament building at night, Vienna --P e z i 20:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 04:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    In my opinion building is tilted --Pudelek 12:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)  Comment You are right! (0.7 Deg), new version uploaded --P e z i 15:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support The new version has no flaws. QI support. Nice night shot! --Cccefalon 23:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe 12:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Mathieudu68 16:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 20:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Paddenstoel Jonkervallei 02.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Mushrooms in the Jonkervallei. Chlorophyllum rhacodes.--
    Famberhorst 16:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Too bad, but there are too many overexposed parts IMO. --Hockei 22:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)  Support Good now. --Hockei 13:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's not really overexposed, just some parts are very bright. I think, it could be repaired by shifting away the histogram from the white highlights. Also a 1:1 aspect ratio which omits the blurry stick on left side and some white areas left and right could enhance the photo. --Cccefalon 23:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Correctie.--Famberhorst 06:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support Very good. Support for the new version. --Cccefalon 09:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 20:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Berlin_-_Neue_Wache2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Berlin: Neue Wache --Taxiarchos228 08:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose the guy with the "censored" face is a no-go for me, sorry --A.Savin 13:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    sorry, but I don't see a problem here for QI --Taxiarchos228 19:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose manipulatet faces, number plates and so on take from me always a kontra. --Ralf Roletschek 14:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment what about removing the pixelation and instead adding the personality rights tag to the description? The overall quality of the photo is good and hey, this time I have no complaints about the perspective correction. --Cccefalon 23:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 08:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Conferencia_de_prensa,_Wikimania_2013,_Hong_Kong,_2013-08-10,_DD_01.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Press photographs of VIPs in Wikimania 2013, Hong Kong --Poco a poco 19:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Need a proper description and categories imo (names of individuals, at least two have their own categories). Some noise and ambivalent cropping imo (either display the logo, or much tighter cropping).--ArildV 19:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 22:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
     Support Thanks. Ok now, good denoising. --ArildV 22:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, but it's not a QI for me. The colors are off, the denoise is aggressive. --Pleclown 23:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Light stripes --Moroder 10:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 08:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Norderney,_Hafen_--_2006_--_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Harbour of Norderney, Germany --XRay 17:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI for me. --JLPC 16:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry – poor detail considering the small image size, sharpening artifacts visible on lamp masts in the background, and the white areas on the beacon and ship look blown to me. --Kreuzschnabel 17:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Good enough for QI, in my opinion. Alvesgaspar 17:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cayambe 16:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Berlin_-_Siegessäule_Spitze.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Berlin: Top of Victory Column --Taxiarchos228 05:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Some very bright spts - inevitably with this motive. I would apply some additional sharpening. --Tuxyso 07:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • improved --Taxiarchos228 21:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is better, but there is a strange blurred area (see note). After your highlight correction some areas look gray. Overexposure at the angel's wings is imho too extreme. This is a very good photo, but according to QI criteria it cannot become QI. Feel free to change to discuss. --Tuxyso 10:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    don't see a problem for QI, let's discuss --Taxiarchos228 11:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support -- People are becoming much more exigent in QI! That is a good sign but I see nothing really wrong with this high resolution photo (Nikon D800 ?). -- Alvesgaspar 17:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support good for QI. I dont see problems. --Ralf Roletschek 07:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. -- Spurzem 23:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 08:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Lübeck_Germany_Sleeping-Lion-at-Holstentor-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The sleeping lion in front of Holstentor, Lübeck, Germany --Cccefalon 18:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Bad upper crop.--ArildV 19:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    The face of the sleeping lion is, what I want to depict. Missing parts of his fur are irrelevant IMO. I ask for discussion. --Cccefalon 22:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC) A small missing part are disturbing and a bad compromise imo, its better to either show the whole lion or do a tighter crop. Let's see what others say. --ArildV 22:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • New version is ok.  Support--ArildV 21:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The top crop really looks like a misstake to me, sorry --Moroder 10:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

✓ accepted. I re-cropped the photo in 1:1 ratio. --Cccefalon 12:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support OK now--Moroder 20:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support new version is much better. QI and nice pic --P e z i 22:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 08:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Domplatz (Magdeburg-Altstadt).Dom.ajb.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Magdeburg cathedral and Domplatz in Magdeburg, Germany. --Ajepbah 12:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment Perspective issues --Christian Ferrer 19:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    Also generally unsharp and dull. Mattbuck 20:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded Perspective corrected, sharpened
  • Ok for perspectives, but for me there is more fine details on the first --Christian Ferrer 17:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Dalian_China_International-Airport-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dalian, Liaoning, China: Entrance to Dalian International Airport --Cccefalon 19:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --XRay 19:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose there is FoP in PRC only if you name the author of the work, here, the architect...--Jebulon 20:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
     Comment You are sure, about what you are going to start? You can continue your work in the appropriate Category:Airports in China ... I am really gobsmacked ... --Cccefalon 21:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
     Comment In my perception, the appropriate stipulation in the Chinese Copyright Law is about an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place (Article 22 (10) of Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2010). The stipulation concerns e.g. statues and not public buildings. --Cccefalon 05:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Please take this to DR if you think it's a copyvio. Mattbuck 22:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support very good quality! --P e z i 21:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 08:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-091.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination old door in center of Abu Dhabi --Ralf Roletschek 12:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Needs a counter-clockwise rotation. Apart from that QI. --NorbertNagel 20:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    OK, corrected. --Ralf Roletschek 14:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Overexposed IMO. Mattbuck 23:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support It look ok for me --Christian Ferrer 12:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMO --P e z i 14:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 08:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Wien-Hietzing_-_Schönbrunn_-_Brunnen_vor_dem_Palmenhaus_-_Pano.jpg[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ralf Roletschek 20:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Ferrari world-abu dhabi-2011.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Exhibition Ferrrari MM 166 of 1948 in the theme park Ferrari world-abu dhabi --Alberto-g-rovi 07:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Florstein 08:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
     Comment Beautiful car but very distorted. I will not decline but I ask for discuss. -- Spurzem 23:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
     Support ok --Vamps 15:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 08:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Cucullie de la scrofulaire MHNT Chenille.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination , Caterpillar of Water Betony - Chenille de Cucullie de la scrofulaire --Ercé 16:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose nice pic, but noisy, unsharp --A.Savin 16:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
     Support QI! Good sharpness, good colours and good composition. -- Spurzem 16:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A.Savin --Christian Ferrer 06:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Very interesting: If I say that it is QI, Christian Ferrer says: It is bad! Is it right? -- Spurzem 14:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. --Cayambe 20:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice picture, I like it. There is some noise, but it is still ok for me, sharpness is fine --Uoaei1 21:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose noise level pretty high --Vamps 16:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support It´s ok -- Qflieger 17:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support It is noisy, but apart from that it’s excellent, so the noise is tolerable IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 17:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is too noisy, That could be reduced. --Hockei 22:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion, this noise level is accettable as macro picture --Fulvio314 10:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Ralf Roletschek 20:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Stift_Klosterneuburg_Brunnenhaus_Schlussstein.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Keystone in cloister of Klosterneuburg monastery --Uoaei1 13:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Could be turned a bit ACW but QI for me. --JLPC 16:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC). --JLPC 16:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Tilted --Christian Ferrer 13:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Corrected by slight rotation anti-clockwise --Uoaei1 21:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe it need a little more but now it's much less disturbing, thanks --Christian Ferrer 05:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Nice lights --High Contrast 20:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Cccefalon 08:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Angkor_SiemReap_Cambodia_Horse-at-Angkor_Wat-01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ankor Wat, Siem Reap, Cambodia: Tourist horse, waiting for customers --Cccefalon 22:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support good quality --P e z i 21:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
     Comment One part of the background is over-exposed and the other is too dark. Further the picture ist too tight cropped below. I ask for discussion. -- Spurzem 00:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support imo it's OK --Moroder 11:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ralf Roletschek 20:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)