Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 17 2014

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Abadía_de_Bath,_Bath,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-12,_DD_07.JPG

[edit]

File:2014-09-03_15-05-34_monument-historique-PA00085439.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Couvent des dominicains (Guebwiller, France) --ComputerHotline 20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Horizontal perspective correction required --Uoaei1 14:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    What could be better? -- Spurzem 22:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 21:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Catedral_de_Salisbury,_Salisbury,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-12,_DD_08-10_HDR.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Salisbury Cathedral, Salisbury, England --Poco a poco 06:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Cccefalon 08:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I really like the composition and the great details, but I dislike ghosts on the altar--Johanning 12:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
     Support I especially promoted it because of the ghosts, because ghosts are less disturbing than people with ugly T-Shirts, standing around. Some locations are never empty and you cannot get shots without disturbing people. Furthermore, this is a long time exposure. Should we decline every ghost trace in bulb exposures? What about ghost cars in street shots during night? etc. etc. --Cccefalon 12:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
     Support Cccefalon has lifted the words from my keyboard --Livioandronico2013 14:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 Comment I am completely happy with that. You won`t see a contra from me, since this is a really nice image. However, I do not understand, why ugly shirts are a question of technical image quality. Perhaps we should prefer blurry ugly shirts then? Ghosts, when present, should fit to the composition, which easily can be achieved in night views of streets. Ghosts gathering around a cathedral's altar are more of a problem to my taste. I have seen images being turned down here on the grounds of less visible problems. On the other hand images with less elaborate composition - and the compostion is really great in this case - are promoted at a significant rate. In case of promotion, there is another similar image by Poco a poco that of course should be promoted as well, then. --Johanning 18:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 Support QI to me, and really very impressive, even, in general, in don't like ghosts, but here .... --DKrieger 22:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Paris,_Sainte-Ursule_de_la_Sorbonne_--_2014_--_1660.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chapelle Sainte-Ursule de la Sorbonne, Paris, France --XRay 03:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support OK --JLPC 16:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Oppose Sorry, I'm interested in a discution about perspective correction. --Jebulon 17:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 07:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Sender Donebach Sendemast.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Donebach transmitter station --Kreuzschnabel 17:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Could you crop out the wooden building on the left please? Mattbuck 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    •  Support Mattbuck 18:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Leaning tower, no QI --MB-one 00:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Matt: I didn’t want to lose too much of the feed wires so I cloned out most of the corner. @MB-one: Would you please have a look at this and delist all of the leaning ones? --Kreuzschnabel 20:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Livioandronico2013 08:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Symbol_of_the_Barberini_family_with_children.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Symbol of the Barberini family with children --Livioandronico2013 23:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 11:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Livio, is white balance ok? I feel it's too warm and yellow. --Kadellar 17:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for review. --Livioandronico2013 20:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Kadellar can you check another time? Thanks --Livioandronico2013 10:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks, better now! --Kadellar 16:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 11:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Berlin, Alte Bibliothek -- 2013 -- 4558-64.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Alte Bibliothek, Berlin, Germany --XRay 06:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    Left side leaning out and there is a green halo around the whole building silhoutte on the top Poco a poco 07:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
    ✓ Fixed Thanks for your advice. Green CAs removed and perspective improved.--XRay 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
     Comment Half of the sky is overexposed. --Ivar 17:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry, the sky isn't voerexposed. A value of 98.5 percent is a very, very bright gray.--XRay 17:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose I'm not agreed. --Ivar 05:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 21:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Frank Dhont of the International Indonesia Forum at the 7th IFF Conference, 2014-08-20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Frank Dhont, chairman of the International Indonesia Forum. Crisco 1492 09:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    I think there's too much space on the left. Mattbuck 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    As my initial comment infers, I disagree with the promotion. --Mattbuck 17:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Some very slight cropping on the left side could be made, but this is only a matter of taste. Clearly QI, regardless if cropped or not. -- Smial 10:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --MB-one 19:18 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Camden Road railway station MMB 04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Camden Road railway station. Mattbuck 09:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
     Comment IMO very dark.--XRay 12:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Review  NeutralInsufficient quality. --Taxiarchos228 13:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    Care to actually give a reason? ✓ Brightened btw. --Mattbuck 17:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    I didn't oppose any more (because it was brightened) but I didn't unterstand the image and what exactly it should show. For me not a suitable detail shot. --Taxiarchos228 11:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me is too dark --Livioandronico2013 08:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --A.Savin 21:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Stratford International station MMB 20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stratford International station. Mattbuck 09:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment IMO it's titled CCW. Please have a look to the escalators.--XRay 12:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Insufficient quality. --Taxiarchos228 13:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    25 hours before declining as not done? I hadn't even seen the comment! Taxiarchos, your passive-aggressive behaviour towards me is getting tiresome. I don't know why you dislike me so much, but the fact that you barely ever make a review which isn't to decline my nominations or disagree with my reviews speaks volumes. If you can't be reasonable to me, please don't review my images.
    Regarding the initial comment, I was not facing straight up, and you are right there is a significant amount of perspective distortion. This is intentional, I do not think the image would look anywhere near as good if it were corrected. --Mattbuck 17:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    the not-done-tag here was my fault, the evaluation for this image wasn't. please spare us with your tirades, thank you. --Taxiarchos228 19:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice view, but tilted. -- Smial 10:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 21:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Lörrach_-_Burghof_Lörrach_-_Abendansicht3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination "Burghof Lörrach" --Taxiarchos228 04:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Too blurry --Diana Ringo 15:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    don't agree and maybe you sign next time? --Taxiarchos228 14:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    The 'Burghof' sign, the ground and the trees are unclear, in comparison with the other photos taken in daylight. If these things are not important, then the image is good. --Diana Ringo 15:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't know what you mean with the Burghof-sign. The Burghof-sign is sharp and clear and is placed over the entrance door. If you mean the poster: this is flaunting like a flag so this can't be shap and clear with long exposure. This image shows the Burghof building and I see not a significant reason agsinst QI. --Taxiarchos228 06:57, 9 September 2014
  •  Support. QI -- I don't see any lack. -- Spurzem 07:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC) (UTC)
  •  Support OK, then I support--Diana Ringo 08:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please see annotations.--Jebulon 10:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose pretty much per all Jebulon's annotations. Mattbuck 17:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Buck: the blurring edge of your daylight image File:University Park MMB «E2 Lenton & Wortley Hall.jpg is similar to my blurring edge of my evening light image. May you answer me why you oppose here but nominate the mentioned image? --Taxiarchos228 19:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Leute, ihr fangt an, hier Ansprüche zu stellen, als ginge es darum, dass jedes QI dafür geeignet sein müsse, Hochglanzwerbung in Größe A0 zu bebildern. Klar, man könnte die leichte(!) Schräge auf der linken Seite noch etwas gerader ziehen, aber um welchen Preis? Jede Perspektivekorrektur führt zwangsläufig zu zusätzlichen Pixelinterpolationen, und dafür sind die minimalen Schrägen da links einfach nicht bildwichtig genug. Außerdem ist die Turmspitze möglicherweise nicht ganz vertikal, das Himmelsrichtungskreuz hängt jedenfalls definitiv schon mal schief am Mast. Die Flecken im Himmel könnten evtl. Reste von weggestempelten Staubflecken sein, es könnten aber ebenso gut durch die Langzeitbelichtung verwischte Wolkenfetzen sein, das kann man wirklich nicht anhand des veröffentlichten JPGs entscheiden. Das Mopped ist scharf genug, wenn man das mal mit anderen Bildern vergleicht, die bei strahlendem Sonnenschein mit Blende 11 und 1/2000s geknipst wurden. Klar ist das wackelnde Plakat etwas störend, aber es ist auch völlig plausibel. Man könnte auch die Lichtstreifen fahrender Autos oder englischer Vorortbahnen bei Nachtaufnahmen bemängeln - immerhin sind die noch viel böser unscharf, verwischt, in der Regel überbelichtet und obendrein oft auch noch bildbestimmend. Kurz: Kommt mal wieder alle auf die ursprüngliche Intention der QIC runter. Das war mal ein Projekt, um aus all dem in den Commons-Kategorien versenkten Bilderschrott diejenigen herauszupicken, die einigermaßen vorzeigbar sind, und um Wikiknipser zu animieren, bei der Aufnahme auf einige grundlegende Fotografierregeln zu achten, damit sich das Qualitätsniveau auf commons ein wenig bessern möge. Dieses Projekt war nie dazu gedacht, eine FPC-Version für Arme zu entwickeln. -- Smial 10:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support and Amen to Smial’s comment. A QIC doesn’t need to be perfect, being good is sufficient. And this image certainly is. --Kreuzschnabel 20:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Is here looking for pins in a haystack? QI for me. --Steindy 23:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Building_in_Avenida_Paulista.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Building in Avenida Paulista --The Photographer 11:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • The perspective distortion at the right side is disturbing. Could you please try to get the verticals rectilinear? --Cccefalon 09:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I think there's some pincushion distortion too. Mattbuck 19:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      •  Not done Mattbuck 08:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • IMHO I think so this image is QI --The Photographer 20:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That doesn’t surprise me too much since it was you to nominate it. But there really is pin-cushion distortion which should be taken care of. --Kreuzschnabel 22:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • lol, authomatic comment IMHO is QI. I uploaded another version, let me see if the verticals are fixed, thanks --The Photographer 00:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      It's a bit better, but still clear pincushion distortion - the left side vertical bends inwards at the middle. Mattbuck 23:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 21:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-05-barcelona-RalfR-053.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Barcelona, El Peix (sculpture by Frank Gehry) --Ralf Roletschek 15:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline CW tilt. --Ivar 16:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
     SupportI see no lack. For me QI. -- Spurzem 17:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC) all lamps in the picture are correct. --Ralf Roletschek 12:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    No, they're pretty clearly tilted. Note added. Mattbuck 10:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 08:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree - its correct. --Ralf Roletschek 22:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until tilt is corrected and this is easy to fix. --Ivar 05:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI, no significant leaning here --Taxiarchos228 06:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose adjectives are not relevant and useless IMO. "Significant" or not, there is a leaning, please see note by Mattbuck. So, per Ivar.--Jebulon 23:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Gerade genug. Solche kleinen Korrekturen führen ohne großen Gewinn nur zu unnötigen Pixelinterpolationen. -- Smial 11:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Is here looking for pins in a haystack? QI for me. --Steindy 23:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, improvable: Tilted and it needs, after, a bit of perspective correction--Lmbuga 23:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 21:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Angoulême_16_Toits_végétalisés_2014.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tiled roofs and green roofs, Angoulême, Charente, France. --JLPC 17:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion DOF to shallow or focus to far on the close side. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I don't agree : let's ask someone else. --JLPC 21:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support Excuse me Tobias but i don't agree with your objections --Livioandronico2013 21:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 Support QI. --P e z i 08:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014-08-23 NADT Josh Phillips Mpact 1.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Josh Phillips + Mpact with the Norfolk Arena Drift Team, 2014-08-23. --Lewis Collard 15:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Blur in all the right places but the cars rear. Hate to write it down.Insufficient quality. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 19:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    In my opinion it is an interesting photo. We should discuss please. -- Spurzem 21:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support difficult and succesful shot at 1/80 to get a more blurred and impressive background. --Kadellar 16:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Livioandronico2013 19:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 10:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment While I understand why the blur towards the back might be disturbing to some, it was part of the reason I nominated my shot. There is a point in a transition to a drift where the rear is visibly motion blurred and the front of the car is not (due to trigonometry, not depth of field); capturing this split second is always my goal because 1) the motion blur makes the transition into a drift apparent 2) it brings the attention to the "face" (headlights and grille) of the car. But you're definitely not unreasonable for differing, Tobias. \o/ Lewis Collard 19:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kreuzkapelle_--_2014_--_2708.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture in front of Holy Cross chapel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Bad angle. Villy Fink Isaksen 07:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
     Comment Which angle? If it's not a good composition, please decline. Otherwise please give me an advise. Thank you.--XRay 14:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    I would prefer a better look behind the bars. Villy Fink Isaksen 19:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
     Comment May be it's better to see another opinion too. Do you agee?--XRay 09:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Technical quality is ok. The composition is non standard, but this image shows the relationship between the sculpture and the surroundings and the chapel in a nice manner. This is certainly not the only possible view on that object but clearly legitimate. -- Smial 15:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure  Support --Livioandronico2013 11:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 11:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Baphuon,_Angkor_Thom,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cows in Baphuon, Angkor Thom, Cambodia --Poco a poco 16:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Please check for CAs top left and top right.--XRay 14:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 07:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    To me this seems a bit distorted/stretched. I don't think this is QI. Mattbuck 08:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
     Comment For me it's QI - if CAs are fixed. Still they are not fixed. (Upload of the fixed image is missing. ;-) ) Mattbuck has another opinion. So I put this review to discussion.--XRay 09:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Uploaded now, sorry, Poco a poco 18:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
     Support IMO it's OK now.--XRay 16:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basílica_de_Santa_María,_Elche,_España,_2014-07-05,_DD_08.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination St Mary Basilica, Elche, Spain --Poco a poco 09:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportGood quality. --Uoaei1 12:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  OpposePlease correct straightness (see note), and symmetry of the two sides, thanks.--Jebulon 13:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 17:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support - Looks ok to me. Mattbuck 23:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version uploaded (following a note of Wilfredo) to reduce the noise in the shadow Poco a poco 12:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent --The Photographer 12:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 21:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)