Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 03 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Hannover_old_town_hall_northwestern_side_Am_Markte_Mitte_Hannover_Germany.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hannover old town hall (northwestern / rear view) located at Am Markte square in Mitte quarter of Hannover, Germany. By User:ChristianSchd --Berthold Werner 13:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose There are blurred areas (trees, windvanes). No QI for me. --Milseburg 14:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support It's perfectly normal that you have some motion blur when the exposure was 15 seconds. Good quality. --Code 19:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support next time I sugget to Berthold Werner a day without wind :) --Livioandronico2013 21:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and nice picture IMO--Lmbuga 21:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment It´s not Berthold´s image. The shooting conditions aren't well chosen for an QI of this subjekt. --Milseburg 22:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment See Commons:Image guidelines about conditions, please--Lmbuga 01:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC).
  •  Comment Your conditions or our conditions?--Lmbuga 01:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment For you, at night, is posible a QI? The conditions are expressed in Commons:Image guidelines--Lmbuga 01:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    • More natural light or less wind I would prefer here. --Milseburg 14:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 08:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014-07-24 Zentrale Deutsche Postbank AG, Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 114-126, Bonn-Gronau IMG 2178.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Deutsche Postbank headquarters --Hasenläufer 16:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 16:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, tilted (see vertical lines of the center of the picture). Too tight. Vertical and horizontal perspective distortion. Good picture, but not QI IMO--Lmbuga 16:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I rotated it a bit to be vertical aligned with the right egde of the middle recess --Hasenläufer 17:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, it's not good for me. Other users can say about the distortion--Lmbuga 22:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Well done, considering this angle of view. --Milseburg 14:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 13:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Glory Effect.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Glory Effect (by ThaliaTraianou). --C messier 14:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeSome of the areas in the ring are posterized. --Cccefalon 14:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I don't see posterisation. More opinions please. --C messier 09:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
      •  Question Is it regular practice to send own pictures into the discussion? --Milseburg 17:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
        •  Info Milseburg: Yes, If you want more opinions. --Hubertl 07:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
          •  Comment C messier, I see it doubtless on my ColorEdge CG277. Do you use a high resolution monitor? --Cccefalon 20:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
          •  Comment I wouldn't say so (more than HD but less full HD). But is it necessary such a high resolution monitor to review a photo? --C messier 10:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  weak I am not absolutely sure, but I think, that a kind of natural posterizing is responsible for this natural effect. But there are some problems like the window... There are some slight jpg-artefacts too, therefore weak. --Hubertl 07:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise, posterisation not only in the center, compression artifacts. -- Smial 11:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 13:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)