Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 15 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Ljungdalen_April_2015_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Old farm house in Ljungdalen. --ArildV 03:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 06:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree: White balance wrong. --Cccefalon 07:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC) new version uploaded, better?--ArildV 17:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support yes, I think, this can pass as QI. --Cccefalon 08:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support yes, new version is better.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --George Chernilevsky 18:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Ile_Royale_chapelle_2013.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chapel on Ile Royale, French Guiana. --Cayambe 07:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
     CommentI know: Interesting perspective, but also a difficult position, to make a quality photo. Yet the roofs in the front area are so not exactly horizontal. For this reason the image looks - first of all (!) - tilted slightly inclined to right. On the other hand, the picture quality makes a positive impression. (I would promote this image, but I do not know, how this works technically. :-)) --BlackIceNRW 08:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose Oversharpened --Smial 10:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion It´s worth for a new postprocessing from the original file. --Hubertl 16:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality --Christian Ferrer 11:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me --Rjcastillo 15:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sharpness slider was indeed pushed to a certain limit. Most parts of the image can cope with that. But the brickwork at the entrance lost structure and looks washed out. Can be fixed and after that, my support will be granted. --Cccefalon 06:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I tried to reprocess the image from the RAW-file. However, the front of the chapel was in a rather dark shadow and therefore I was not successful in recovering more details in the stone wall. I uploaded a downsized version - still>8 MB - over the original file. Could this be a QI? --Cayambe 13:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --George Chernilevsky 18:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Störche Steinwedel (4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Young White storks in nest. --Hydro 06:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Doesn't seem very sharp. --Charlesjsharp 20:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Perhaps not very sharp but sharp enough for QI as I think. -- Spurzem 10:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support good for QI.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 19:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharp enough for me, but composition. Rule of thirds is not applicable here. Too tight at right IMO--Lmbuga 23:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 07:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --George Chernilevsky 18:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Tip_of_trullo_in_Alberobello.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Tip of trullo in Alberobello --Livioandronico2013 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)*  Comment a bit better crop? See notes! --Hubertl 07:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Hubertl,thanks --Livioandronico2013 07:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 07:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Question Is this really QI? --Charlesjsharp 20:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    • *  Comment Why Charlesjsharp? Usually people write a reason for the opposition, don't ask for promotion reason --Livioandronico2013 23:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed. -- Smial 09:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --George Chernilevsky 18:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

File:1941 Buick Series 40 Duke's Club.- Villeneuve d'Ascq (1).jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]