Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 22 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Ringling_Museum_Cà_d'Zan_detail_or_rear_view_Sarasota_Florida.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cà d'Zan at the John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art in Sarasota in Florida. --Moroder 21:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, the distortions are too heavy, especially on the top right. --Peulle 00:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Different crop --Moroder 10:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I still think the problems are too great, it's just not sharp and crisp enough.--Peulle 19:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

File:17-04-11-Poco-Siemensdamm-Berlin-RalfR-DSC_0157.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Poco Einrichtungshaus in Berlin am Siemensdamm --Ralf Roletschek 11:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Quality is high enough for Q1, but the branches at the right are disturbing a bit --Michielverbeek 13:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question@Michielverbeek: Don't you like a foreground? -- Spurzem 20:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please check for CAs at the left. --XRay 16:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Set to discussion. Please remove CAs. --XRay 06:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Nearly fixed and good enough. Thank you. --XRay 15:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Skeidi kirke 7.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ruin of Skeidi church, a mediaeval church dedicated to St. Olav, inaugurated ca. 1150.--Peulle 00:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Blown highlights in the sky. I don´t think that is fixable. --Ermell 06:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Maybe not. I did have that problem in some of these images. Do you it could be cropped? Thanks for your review.--Peulle 10:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Cropping could solve the problem. CA is also visible at the branches in that area. The shadows could need some light but have to be denoised then.--Ermell 15:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done cropped version uploaded. What do you think? As the ruin is the focus I don't really think we lost anything. I don't think the shadows should be brightened any more as it was actually quite dark in the areas the sun didn't shine.--Peulle 00:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Well done.--Ermell (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good enough for QI, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 06:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 22:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Kellergasse Nonndorf Rückseite.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kellergasse in Nonndorf/Niederösterreich - Rückseite. --Manfred Kuzel 05:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 22:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blueish and too bright highlights. --C messier 08:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per Cmessier --Michielverbeek 06:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Milseburg 14:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Without prejudice to anything else, dust spots must be fixed. There's a light one to the right of the cross and a darker one near the right margin. -- Ikan Kekek 07:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, I overlooked that the top right edge was not cut correctly. Correction is easy possible, but must be done. --Milseburg 11:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ich hoffe, das richtig verstanden zu haben und habe den rechten Rand beschnitten.--Manfred Kuzel 16:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 22:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Bâtiment_des_Archives_cantonales_vaudoises.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Building of the Archives of the State of Vaud, Lausanne, Switzerland. --Yann 15:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 18:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (for now) Plese correct the perspective at the left, and remove the white frame on the left --A.Savin 23:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Yann 11:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is decrease of sharpness compared to the previous version. --A.Savin 13:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A.Savin: Are you sure it is not a cache issue, or something like that? I saved the file in XCF, and I used that to edit (slightly) again. So there shouldn't be any difference of sharpness. Regards, Yann 22:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not a cache issue. You may open both versions in separate tabs and then compare the quality by switching between the tabs. --A.Savin 18:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Livioandronico2013 20:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Need fix dust spots (see note) --The Photographer 16:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Yann 19:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Provisional  Oppose - Not done. I can see at least 6 major dust spots in the marked area. Granted, they're light, but they still need to be really fixed. -- Ikan Kekek 03:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Why not --Billy69150 16:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see dust spots. As those are so easy to fix, they really should be before promotion.--Peulle 16:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I don't see any more dust spots. Yann 17:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Some of them are marked, see annotation. Another trick for spotting spots in the sky is moving the picture back and forth while keeping your eye still.--Peulle 19:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --A.Savin 22:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)