Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 18 2018

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Untere_Mühle_Pufels_Gröden.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Old Mill in Bula Val Gardena. --Moroder 16:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Ugly overexposed area, not a QI to me, sorry --Poco a poco 18:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree, it's not overexposed it's just white clouds. --Moroder 21:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    Wolfgang, the area in the top right is totally gone, look at it closely, it is just white, no detail, burnt. You will not be able to save it. --Poco a poco 07:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Moroder. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The clouds need some fixings. Otherwise good.--Ermell 07:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, as for poco. Clouds are clipping with harsh edges and partly posterization. --Smial 11:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 20:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Landscape_of_Rahier_with_cows.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Landscape with cows in Rahier (Stoumont, Wallonia, Belgium) --PJDespa 21:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --GPSLeo 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Could someone give another opinion ? Why is tje quality unsufficient ,--PJDespa 21:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks hazy and a bit unsharp. Could you try to dehaze it a bit? Give it a bit more contrast, constrast in the midtones/clarity. --Basotxerri 05:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Hazy day. Seems acceptable to me, though if it indeed wasn't that hazy, sure, dehaze a bit. -- Ikan Kekek 08:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment New file uploaded, hope it is better. --PJDespa (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment The "hazy" version looks more natural to me. --Smial 11:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    •  Comment I do agree with you, so I revert to the previous file uploaded --PJDespa (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I think it's acceptable, too. --Basotxerri 12:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for QI. --Smial 13:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 19:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

File:2017-09-09_(105)_Erdfunkstelle_Aflenz_with_fog.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Erdfunkstelle Aflenz, Austria with fog.--GT1976 06:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 07:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Tilted/perspective, disturbing foreground objects. Not sure about the sharpness either. --Basotxerri 16:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 14:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective.--Peulle (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Perspective at the left should be corrected. -- Spurzem 13:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Until the crop is optimised and the perspective is not corrected no QI for me.--Ermell 07:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment There was an edit conflict at 06:55 today, so I've put it back to Discuss. --Basotxerri 12:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective. -Smial 13:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 19:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)