Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 12 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Jiuzhaigou_Sichuan_China_Jiuzhaigou-Tibetan-Mystery-Theater-03.jpg

[edit]

File:Scharnstein_Viechtwang_Pfarrkirche_Chor_Fresken.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Frescos in the ceiling of the parish church of Viechtwang --Isiwal 19:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 21:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The top shows detail loss to (near) overexposure. Please either darken the highlights or use a tighter crop. --Mattbuck 00:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Reduced exposure in the upper area. The whites in the original Raw have had 89% (is that near overexposure already?), now they have somewhat under 80% --Isiwal 20:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
      It was difficult to discern detail. his is much better.  Support Mattbuck 22:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
      No problem, thanks for review. --Isiwal 23:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Nationaal Park Weerribben. Bevroren rietveld 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination National Park Weerribben. Frozen reed.
    Famberhorst 16:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Rather soft I think. --Mattbuck 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support. I don't think so. For me it is QI. -- Spurzem 11:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 07:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted Code 05:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)