Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 03 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Blue Hour Piazza Duomo 5 - Syracuse - Unesco World Heritage.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Piazza Duomo square of Syracuse, Sicily
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Codas 19:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am not very impressed about the perspective so I wouid like to have more opinions --Michielverbeek 23:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Michielverbeek, you can´t send a picture with just an {{Comment}} to the consensual review. Either/or. so I changed it to {{Oppose}} --Hubertl 12:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support good with 11 mm --Ralf Roletschek 13:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice lighting, but not an adequate perspective. Sorry, such historical buildings need imo more respect. -- Smial 14:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support This type of perspective has its uses, just as a normal focal length (and photo angle) of the individual buildings would have their own (less distorting) uses. This isn't a reason for me to oppose, so QI for me. Ram-Man 16:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Smial --Moroder 18:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of perspective -- Spurzem 20:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support This photo has its value not in the perfect perspective but in the pictoric effect given by the liquid reflections on plaze, seems more a painting then photo Dario Giannobile 21:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial --Stepro 05:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ok Dario Giannobile but here is quality images and not Artistic images! Try on Featured,but i don't think that can be a good idea. Sorry --Livioandronico2013 21:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This photo is not a post processed image with filter or artificial paintings. This shot is real. I truly do not understand how a quality image could be "a quality image" without an idea or a story behind it;seems to prefer vertical lines and perfect perspective above everything else....perfect perspective.....with a F11 wide angle...where do we live! Dario Giannobile 14:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Story? Here is a place for images not for stories! Perspective is wrong,If you want use a wide angle is better for you don't put images here. Perspective is wrong. --Livioandronico2013 23:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Please calm down. There is no such thing like "absolute quality criteria", though many contributors here claim that. I used the abbreviation "imo" (in my opinion) in my vote with purpose. -- Smial 13:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I must admit, it is funny!!! I still do not understand the equation: distorted perspective bad quality....but since it is just my opinion than it has the same value than yours.... let's speak people who works for important media such national geographic. Please have a look at the following video: <nowiki>[http://twanight.org/TWAN/news.asp?newsID=6101 minute 8:46]. you will see the same shot with the same distorted perspective but different orientation (north versus south) that was judged among the most notable shots in this really important contest. Bad perspective and "missing in respect to such hystorical monument" meant nothing, as they should, when the picture is a picture a not a simple shot. the sooner this is understood the sooner everybody can move over its limits. Dario Giannobile 22:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support there are not many differences to me to some interior wide angle shots. As Ram-Man.  Comment it was me --Hubertl 19:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Anonimus vote--Livioandronico2013 23:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice lighting, beautiful reflections, much more interesting to see than the usually boring pictures that get nominated here. I can't see how this "disrespects" historic buildings. Note however, that Dario support vote should not count as he is the creator of the picture. --Xicotencatl 17:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality (especially the right-hand side is badly blurred; the fact that it's normal for an ultra wide angle shot does not make it QI, either), and COM:OVERCAT. --A.Savin 18:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A.Savin. Too many blurry areas, especially at right. --Jebulon 09:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The top left and right corners are far below QI standard, for this picture I'd expect also a perspective correction Poco a poco 16:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 9 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 10:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)