Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 19 2013

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:U-19 EC-Qualifikation Austria vs. France 2013-06-10 (120).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yassine Benzia (Olympique Lyon), player of the France U-19 footballteam. --Steindy 22:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Smial 19:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry I disagree, noisy background and not really sharp even after downsampling to just above 2 MPix. --D4m1en 09:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    ::And how much needs? --Steindy 00:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, the eyes has not good detail. A bit of noise. Downsampling. Not QI IMO--Lmbuga 19:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    ::And how do you know that the image is scaled down? And the slight noise in the background is crucial in a portrait, not the person depicted? --Steindy (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes should be brightened, quality (especially sharpness) is at the low end. No QI for me. --Tuxyso 13:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 17:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File:U-19 EC-Qualifikation Austria vs. France 2013-06-10 (131).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sébastien Haller (AJ Auxerre), player of the France U-19 footballteam. --Steindy 22:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Smial 19:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry I disagree, noisy background and not really sharp even after downsampling to just above 2 MPix. --D4m1en 09:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    ::And how much needs? --Steindy 00:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Noise, chromatic noise, downsampled, a bit of CAs over the shoulders. The eyes has not for me good detail. Too tight at bottom IMO--Lmbuga 18:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
And how do you know that the image is scaled down? And the slight noise in the background is crucial in a portrait, not the person depicted? --Steindy 00:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 17:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ryazan 06-13 Dyagilevo Station 03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Freight trains at Dyagilevo station in Ryazan, Russia. --A.Savin 11:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Subject not distinct. First glance gives an idea of stacked train. . ! --Yndesai 11:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Both trains are clearly identifiable. Good quality image. Good enough for me to support. --JDP90 18:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 19:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 20:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Paddington station MMB 79 332003.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Night shot of Paddington. Mattbuck 21:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Interfere great picture, but the phantom figures are disturbing. --Steindy 22:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it is QI. Phantom figures with long exposure is acceptable --Nino Verde 07:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Ok for me
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 19:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support As Nino Verde. --Dirtsc 09:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 20:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Cwm Idwal.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cwm Idwal in Wales --Sjokolade 14:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Great atmosphere, but poor sharpness
  •  Oppose unsharp, sorry --Nino Verde 12:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - agreed, unsharp. Mattbuck 17:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 20:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Scarborough railway station MMB 11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The world's longest bench. Mattbuck 21:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Lack of depth of field. --Steindy 22:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Shallow DOF is a positive factor here - imo --Martin Falbisoner 22:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • It was intentional, though if I were to do it again I'd bring the focal point closer. Mattbuck 23:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
      • You're right, it would be much better with the focal point closer. Christian Ferrer 05:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hic et nunc 11:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Smial 18:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMO, and I like that image --DKrieger 20:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 20:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
[edit]

  • Nomination Pereslavl museum at night. --PereslavlFoto 16:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Info Mattbuck says, the image has not much colour depth, is fuzzy. Yet he did not show the place of mistake. Let us wait for other opinions. -- PereslavlFoto, 16:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many problems: unsharp, noise reduction overuse, clouds edges are strange pixelated. Definitely not QI. --Nino Verde 12:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Nino Verde, too many issues and unnatural sky IMO, too processed--Lmbuga 18:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, pals! Now I see the problem places ans I know where to check. --PereslavlFoto 22:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined A.Savin 17:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File:13-05-05 Oldtimerteffen Liblar Hürlimann 04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eicher and Hürlimann tractor at oldtimer meet-up in Liblar 2013 -- Achim Raschka 14:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Dirtsc 20:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose - too tight crop at bottom, overexposed. Mattbuck 21:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support for the records: the crop at the bottom is not very distracting to me. The sky is overexposed, but I think it is nearly impossible to avoid this. The main objects are sharp, detailled and well lit. --Dirtsc 06:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support QI, though could be cropped somewhat on the left side. -- Smial 12:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed. Subject might have value but very low points on image quality parametersYndesai 12:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As others and too tight at bottom and at right: I don't like the composition--Lmbuga 19:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 17:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Dankov - 15 Tikhvin Cathedral.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral of Our Lady of Tikhvin in Dankov, Russia. --A.Savin 12:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose On one hand, disturbs the strong shadows, on the other hand some areas of the photos are over-exposed and frayed by the reflections. --Steindy 20:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The histogram shows no OE areas (some minor reflections hardly may count). The shadows are normal for this time of day, they do not disturb the main subject to me. --A.Savin 21:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Enough quality IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Rather dark IMO/ Mattbuck 17:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    Better, but maybe rather blue? You were there, so if you say it's as it was, then  Support. Mattbuck 23:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Dark (not underexposed but dark) Improvable IMO--Lmbuga 20:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Fixed --A.Savin 09:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Better, thanks--Lmbuga 10:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now. --High Contrast 20:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted A.Savin 17:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Wien - Bundeskanzleramt1.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Bundeskanzleramt, Wien (picture by User:Bwag. -- Felix Koenig 10:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Visible CA at 100% view --Smial 11:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see the CA, but I see a very good photo. QI for me. --Steindy 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • See notes. -- Smial 23:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • The person is not important for the photo. This is deliberate search for defects. The building is mapped properly. --Steindy 20:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
There are two image notes, more could be applied. -- Smial 11:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Then show your problems. The main object looks good, maybe the image can be cropped a bit. --Dirtsc 20:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Red/Green CA is nearly everywhere outside the image center. See notes. -- Smial 14:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Red CA in the right part. Lack of detail. --A.Savin 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support - ok for me. Mattbuck 17:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Really sharp, but harsh shadows IMO. There are CAs, but not disturbing IMO. (Sorry, I don't like the light)--Lmbuga 19:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined A.Savin 17:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)