Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 20 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Amata bicincta 8126.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Amata bicincta --Vengolis 03:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion *  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

*  Comment I disagree: Not signed --Cccefalon 03:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, can be promoted after 2 days imo. --Cccefalon 06:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support signed now. --Hubertl 05:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 00:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Amata bicincta8094.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Amata bicincta --Vengolis 03:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree: Not signed --Cccefalon 03:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, can be promoted after 2 days imo. --Cccefalon 06:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support signed now. --Hubertl 05:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 00:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Hotel_Continental_Canal_Grande_Venezia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palaces on the Canal Grande in Venice. Part of Hotel Continental --Moroder 04:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment I'm not shure, but for me one of the two buildings in the center of the image (the second fully shown building from the left side) looks a bit unsharp. Especially compared to the building on the right side. Could that be the case? I can't explain it. --Mummelgrummel 18:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment That sounds strange with a frontal picture with f/9 from a notable distance. I don't really note a sensible difference. Best regards --Moroder 06:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment Yes, it sounds strange. But you can see it in the plaque that says "Sveriges consulate". Therefore it would be better if someone else can have a second guess. I'm sure that I can learn a lot for my assessement too.

 Question Does anybody know why this nomination is here at CR? --Hubertl 09:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

    • Not my fault ;-) --Moroder 13:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment @Hubertl: I think it's my fault because I wanted that someone else has a look at this picture. When all is o.K. than it's right for me too. And I have learned a lot. I hope, that is o.K. --Mummelgrummel 17:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support because everything is fine, there are no other complaints and this image is part of a great documentation of Venice. And, because this picture was nominated 13 days ago. There is no good reason, not to finish this dramolette. --Hubertl 09:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 09:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quay and piers.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Quay and piers at the south harbour in Lysekil, Sweden.--W.carter 22:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Fixed up a bit of the too dark shadows. Please reload page. W.carter 19:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Ok for QI --Hubertl 18:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted to the right (CW) and unbalanced composition IMHO. --C messier 14:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment OK, tilt fixed and cropped a bit for better balance, but the intention was to get the zig-zag of the pier and that's never going to be balanced I'm afraid. ;) This is as good as it gets guys, take it or leave it. W.carter 00:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment You didn't fix tilt (check horizon). --C messier 14:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment Yes I did, I used the gray steel box and the house to the right + the TV tower you can see in the distance. See note. That one is straight. This is inside a fjord with hills, islands and bays in the distance, so a normal horizon does not exist. this pic is taken further up the fjord and it gives you a better idea of how the landscape works here. w.carter-Talk 09:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
          •  Comment Your camera is about 2 metres above the water, the distant coastline must be more or less straight from that POV (see note). The TV tower is too few pixels to make an accurate correction. --C messier 11:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Okay, if you say so. New version uploaded. W.carter 13:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
            • I strike my oppose, as tilt was the main reason to set this photo to discuss. --C messier 10:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
              • Thanks, that was kind of you. I was thinking of withdrawing just to save everyone from the headache. I'll give it another day now. W.carter 18:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 09:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Sala_Compañía,_Jerez_de_la_Frontera,_España,_2015-12-07,_DD_39-41_HDR.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Sala Compañía, Jerez de la Frontera, Spain --Poco a poco 17:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose For me too noisy sky --A.Savin 01:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ New version, should be ok now Poco a poco 17:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment What I see is that the sky was softened, so the noise is softer but still visible, IMO --A.Savin 03:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment I believe your monitor is too bright, that area is dark in mine, the noise is moderate, the image is sharp. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 12:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 10:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --C messier 11:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too strong distortet. --Ralf Roletschek 10:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Sorry aber das ist nun wirklich alles andere als natürlich.
  •  Support ok for me. --Hubertl 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange perspective (though probably technically ok), bad lighting. I believe sodium lamps as main light souce are not suitable for QI. -- Smial 14:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. From this angle absolutely o.k. and no noise visible for me --Ermell 07:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 13:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 09:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)