Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 13 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Dülmen,_Kreuzkapelle_--_2014_--_2741.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Masonry of the Holy Cross chapel, Dülmen, Germany --XRay 03:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Neutral I'm not convinced of the sharpness. --Hockei 19:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed I tried to sharpened the image. Hopefully it's OK.--XRay 17:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 Comment Better, but I'm still not sure. We should discuss. --Hockei 21:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support. I think it is sharp enough for QI. -- Spurzem 22:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Ram-Man 13:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Christian Ferrer 17:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

File:P-rubtsova-7481.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Visitor admires the artistic exhibition in Pereslavl museum-preserve. --PereslavlFoto 08:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment
  • Nice image. The permission of the person is missing. Why is this image categorized as "to be improved"? --XRay 08:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Because any non-QI image has to be improved. --PereslavlFoto 14:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO the image is tilted CW and the person in the background is too unfavorable. The composition with the thinking woman looks good, but IMO another would not help. Sorry. --XRay 06:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    •  Info Not the image is tilted, but the paintings are fixed under some angle to vertical walls. Check the shadows --PereslavlFoto 23:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      •  Comment May you're right with the tilted image. I checked the window. IMO the main problem is the person in the background.--XRay 17:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
        • This is not about QI as technology, it's about composition. --PereslavlFoto 23:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
          • ... and Composition and lighting is part of QI. ;-) --XRay 12:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above Alvesgaspar 17:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support. The main object (woman) is good, so the image can be QI. The man add some charm to picture. :) --Brateevsky (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Christian Ferrer 17:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Бюст_юноши_Ск._БАРАТТА_П..JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Летний сад, СПб. --Max A. Khlopov 12:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support crop tight and sky just ok, however ok for me --Christian Ferrer 12:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    Fails COM:FOP#Russia (which explicitly excludes sculpture). --Mattbuck 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    According to the catalog entry linked in the WLM-template (sorry, seems I can't link this here), the sculpture was created in 1719-1720, so it's probably old enough to be in the Public Domain, FOP or not. Should probably use {{Art Photo}} instead of {{Information}} though … --El Grafo 09:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor framing and lighting -- Alvesgaspar 17:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Alvesgaspar --Ruthven 15:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Christian Ferrer 17:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Baños_del_Rey_y_de_la_Reina,_Bath,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-12,_DD_42.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Roman Baths, Bath, England --Poco a poco 19:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    Quite a lot of CA, cyanotic sky. Mattbuck 18:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Not done Mattbuck 20:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 21:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    I feel it is QI now, please, let's discuss to avoid that the bot sweeps it Poco a poco 15:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the sky is not really better IMO.--Jebulon 21:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see no lack at the sky. But the crop at the bottom is too tight for me and the perspective correction seems not to be the best. -- Spurzem 22:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sorry, but, IMHO Flag Tower of the background disappears due to overexposure. --The Photographer 15:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Christian Ferrer 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Църква_св._Йоан_Канео,_Охрид.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination en:Church of St. John at Kaneo with lake Ohrid in the background, Ohrid, Macedonia. --Tropcho 09:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose noise, perspective distortion --A.Savin 16:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    The image is certainly not super sharp (probably as good as it gets with that camera). But regarding the perspective distortion - perhaps it's a matter of taste, but I don't think that it's hurting the shot in this case. I'd be happy if someone else would care to give additional feedback. Thanks! --Tropcho 22:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not enough detail on the main subject. --MB-one 13:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per MB-one : bad light on the main frontage imo --Gzzz 22:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Christian Ferrer 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)