Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 09 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Hammam interior - frigidarium.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hammam's interior - frigidarium --Aymen FANTAR 23:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 03:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do not agree. The file hasn't a meaningful filename. --XRay 05:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Much better now. --XRay 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Is it better now? --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 14:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • All we now this is a hammam in Tunisia. We need more exact information, what is the name of the hammam, in which town it is and a geotage is pretty usefull. I guess there isn't only one hamman in Tunisia. Termporally  Oppose. --C messier 12:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Aymen FANTAR: 'Pinging' the nominator/uploader on this, s(he) should really help us out here with this. W.carter 15:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Is it better now? Aymen FANTAR 13:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Much better.  Support --W.carter 14:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Provisional oppose Tilted in ccw direction (see the verticals in the middle of the picture) Poco a poco 18:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 19:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Bonn-grazienbrunnen-02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fountains in Bonn --AKirch-Bonn 14:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not big enough. Sorry --Ermell 19:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment 3 Mpix is the maximum resolution of this camera. Please discuss. --C messier 08:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The file is at 3.146 Mpx which is well over the 2 Mpx limit for QI. I can't see the problem. W.carter 20:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 2MP is our minimum. --Alchemist-hp 21:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, with all respect to the photographer, who apparently got the best out of this camera: There is CA, there is nearly no detail in dark areas, esp. the faces of the figures, also some color noise in all dark areas, and sharpness is, regarding the rather low resolution, below actual standards. --Smial 09:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1 --Berthold Werner 18:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial.--Peulle 07:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 19:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)