Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 13 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Eglise_Notre-Dame_de_Calais.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Notre-Dame church of Calais --Milseburg 21:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Underexpposed IMHO --Ezarate 22:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok for me. So let´s hear other opinions. --Milseburg 23:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Seven Pandas 11:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good, surely QI. --Steindy 12:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for the time being ... I think the light is OK, but I'm more worried about the perspective. Isn't that tower leaning to the left?--Peulle 15:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 Question @Peulle: Does it? How do you see that? --Milseburg 12:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 Comment look at it at 100% and scroll to the left monitor edge. You can see it. But it is too less. I would say: Do'nt discuss abou 0.1 or 0.2 degrees and leave it as it is. -- DerFussi 05:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, definitely a QI for me. --Aristeas 13:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's ok. --Imehling 17:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support ok to me -- DerFussi 05:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Fiat_500_Topolino,_Bj._1955_(2016-05-01_b).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Fiat 500 “Topolino” from 1957 Spurzem 16:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please, improve white balance. --Muntashir 03:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
As I've said earlier, you should improve white balance. It looks OK when it's small but looks too white in a full screen view. -- Muntashir 17:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 21:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, don't understand the dicussion --Michielverbeek 07:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Michielverbeek. --Steindy 12:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see it either. The light isn't ideal but there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the technical quality.--Peulle 15:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Please, read the guideline, especially the color section. -- Muntashir 17:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support No doubt good quality. --Palauenc05 12:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:City_Theater_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination City Theater of Tehran. By User:Alireza.heydear --Jolmia 12:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good detail on tiling, and setting sun adds good splash of colour. --Bobulous 16:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. It may be good enough, but there are perspective issues. These kind of photographs should be symmetric. --XRay 17:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support please don't distort the image. --Ralf Roletschek 12:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Reaches QI-level in my eyes. 100% symmetrie isn´t necessary. --Milseburg 13:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Of course a perfectly symmetrical image would be even better, but IMHO we should not require that for QI. --Aristeas 13:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per my previous speakers -- DerFussi 05:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Stillfried_Kellergasse_Kirchweg_9.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse „Kirchweg“ in Stillfried (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry! There are a lot of stripes under the roof and on the gutter of the left house also under the roof of th right house. --Steindy 11:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Steindy. We had this probable sensor error already before. --Smial 20:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Diese Streifen sind die Holzlattung an der Unterseite der Dachhaut. --Manfred Kuzel 04:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Ich gleube nicht. Man siehst sie auch am Blech des Daches
 Comment: Die Rostflecken? --Manfred Kuzel 13:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 Comment: Nein. Waagerechte Streifen dazu noch runde Banding-Effekte. Ist dein Monitor kalibriert? vielleicht stellt er in den dunkeln Bereichen die Unterschiede nicht so gut dar? Ich habe mal versucht es etwas zu verstärken hier. Kannst du es hier sehen? -- DerFussi 16:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Steindy. -- DerFussi 05:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Maison_15_place_Broglie_Strasbourg_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination House, 15 Broglie square in Strasbourg, France. --Chabe01 21:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline  SupportGood quality -- Spurzem 21:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
     OpposeI disagree. This image need a perspective correction, it seems some CAs too. --Tournasol7 08:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Tournasol7. --Manfred Kuzel 04:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support minimal CA and no correction needed. --Ralf Roletschek 21:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality (I've spent some time, to find the CA). --Steindy 12:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it, and strongly disagree that perspective correction is necessary: this is how the view would appear to the human eye from the street, and stretching the top to make it into a perfect rectangle is a false visual representation in my opinion.--Bobulous (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are quite a lot of chromatic aberrations here, especially on the left.--Peulle 15:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sorry but Peulle is right. The purple and green chromatic aberrations are quite irritating at the windows of the white building at the left, but also in other places (e.g. at the two windows of the ground floor of the right building: green CAs at the horizontal contrast lines). @Chabe01: Have you got a RAW file for this photo, or just the JPEG image? If there is a RAW file, RAW converters can probably remove all/most CAs like a charm. But even if there is no RAW file, it is possible to reduce the CAs. Should I upload a version with reduced CAs? No offence, just wanting to help … --Aristeas (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am not a fan of always fixing perspective, but in this case it can and should be done -- DerFussi 05:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)