Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 30 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Paris_Notre-Dame_Choir_Screen_North_03.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Choir screen at cathedral Notre-Dame de Paris, France. Detail of the north side. --Uoaei1 14:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --Touzrimounir 14:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you oppose please give a reason for your review. It is helpful for the other reviewers and the photographer. --XRay 07:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support What? Maybe a little dark, but fine otherwise.  Support --Tsungam 14:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO good enough for QI. Sharp, crop, composition, ... OK. --XRay 07:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Light situation inside churches is mostly complicated when you go for close-ups. Nothing to complain with that image, available light is well handled. --Cccefalon 07:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support as others --Hubertl 10:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support as others --Johann Jaritz 12:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Akhtamar12.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Akdamar Island in Lake Van, in eastern Turkey --Armenak Margarian 10:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Medium69 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Notable chromatic aberration on both sides. --Iifar 18:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Doesn't make sense to send a picture to discuss only with a comment. yes or no. --Hubertl 09:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • {{o}} *  Support as long the CAs are not repaired. ok now --Hubertl 19:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I repaired the chromatic aberration at the request of the author. Consider the current bug Commons to compare the image.
  •  Comment with all due respect, but there is nothing repaired! --Hubertl 18:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, but the problem is the current bug Commons makes you still see the old version. I have the same problem with the online version. --Medium69 19:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    No, the problem is, because the/your changes has been reverted by the photographer himself. --Hubertl 19:56, 25 November 2015(UTC)
    Dear Hubert, I understood the problem. But what do you propose now? --Armenak Margarian (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Download this version (the real Medium69-Version and reload it again, so this will be really the last, visible one. --Hubertl 12:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Dear Hubertl, now is ok. Thank you for your help Medium69, Hubertl and Iifar
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)