User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test

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

Nominations

[edit]

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

September 2, 2007

[edit]

September 1, 2007

[edit]

August 31, 2007

[edit]

August 30, 2007

[edit]

August 29, 2007

[edit]

August 28, 2007

[edit]

August 27, 2007

[edit]

August 26, 2007

[edit]

August 25, 2007

[edit]

August 24, 2007

[edit]

August 23, 2007

[edit]

August 22, 2007

[edit]


Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

[edit]

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images, and change the form according to the procedure explained in the Guidelines.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility. In any case, please explain your reasons.
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 15 days, counted from its entry.


Images

[edit]

Jugendstil painted decor

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

Dullahan

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

Representation of Honorius III

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

Göttweig Abbey

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss


USB Type A Plug

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

Nescio bridge, Amsterdam

[edit]

original version with stitching error:

new version:

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

New Town Hall, Munich

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

♀ Oedipoda caerulescens

[edit]
  • Nomination ♀ Oedipoda caerulescens, Spain. Lycaon 12:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Review
  • I'd like to promote, but I there is what I believe to be blur from shake - Benh 20:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC).
  •  Comment I think the photo was taken on an angle to the insect, then rotated so DOF is inconsistent along the insects length. Whatever the cause it does not look sharp. --Tony Wills 13:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment There was no rotation and negligible shake, but some movement of the critter. I could of course, like so many here, resort to 1600x1200 resampling (see bottom sample), but sorry, that I refuse as too much information would be lost. Post processors can still decide on doing that later if it fits there purposes, but once uploaded as a resampled version, there is no way back. Lycaon 09:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO Lycaon has a good point. Although not perfect, I find that the original photo has a sufficient sharpness for QI. -- Slaunger 22:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Trondheim

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

Rhinanthus angustifolius

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss


Tokyo Ska Paradise Orchestra

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

Main street of Dubrovnik

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss


Fortifications at Ston

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

Chiesa del Gesù (Roma, Italy)

[edit]

Restitched version

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

Chiesa gesu facade edit

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

Ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeuil (Upper Belvedere)

[edit]
  • Nomination Ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeuil: Prince Eugene as a new Apollo - Marble Hall (Belvedere, Vienna) --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Overexposed and heavily noisy Alessio Damato 17:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK. You're right. Here is the non-cropped version. The only "real thing" are the two window frames on the left and the four lamps. Any thing else is illusion on an almost flat ceiling. Upper right "over-exposition" creates the illusion of light entering the top-right window. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment much better, but it's blurred. Alessio Damato 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would like a second opinion on that. Blur is employed to recreate some DOF but I am not 100% sure. Camera was laying on the floor to take full benefit of perspective.
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  1 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Edited

[edit]
  • Nomination Non-cropped version of the ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeil. The only "real thing" are the two window frames on the left and the four lamps. Anything else is illusion on an almost flat ceiling. Upper right "over-exposition" creates the illusion of light entering the top-right window Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment much better, but it's blurred. Alessio Damato 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose Sorry, I think a bit more sharpness need to QI. --Beyond silence 06:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  •   You're right. I will go back to the Belvedere Museum for another run of pictures. I hope they will let me in with my tripod ;-) Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  Nomination withdrawn -> not promoted to QI -- Lycaon 09:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Black Poplar

[edit]

  • Nomination Black Poplar (Populus nigra) (better composition) --Beyond silence 07:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Better composition indeed, but your main topic (the tree) should be really crisp. It isn't. Lycaon 07:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like today you have decling tone. May it enough sharp, what do else think? --Beyond silence 08:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Subject not sufficiently sharp IMO. -- Slaunger 22:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  2 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 11:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeuil

[edit]

  • Nomination Ceiling painting with trompe-l'oeuil by Andrea Pozzo - Jesuit Church (Vienna) --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  OpposeReally noisy, sorry. It has an impressive view, may after some noise reducation It can be a QI. --Beyond silence 00:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  NeutralA little noisy but well within my tolerable range, especially given the resolution. Fix the tilt, and you've got my vote. Thegreenj 00:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Oppose indeed too noisy. Lycaon 07:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Edited 2

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

Male blackbird

[edit]
  • Nomination Male Blackbird --Tony Wills 07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Question Can your improve on bill's bright? Thanks --Beyond silence 20:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It looks as if the whole picture is suffering from a magenta cast. Lycaon 10:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Info Have adjusted the bills brightness slightly and fixed colour balance. --Tony Wills 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bill is distracting, now too. --Beyond silence 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes the bill is shiny and so was over-exposed, so I've taken the edge off its brightness. But the head is the focal point of the image, so is the beak really 'distracting'? Is one small deficiency sufficient to decline, are there other faults? --Tony Wills 07:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

edited version

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

Upper reaches of the Rhone river

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

Edited

[edit]
  • Nomination Upper reaches of the Rhone river. Edited by --Beyond silence 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose - Posterization and artifacts in the sky (please see the top of the mountains) - Alvesgaspar 09:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment this edit is over the top for my taste. It does not represent the scene as I have witnessed it. I still think that the original is more than sufficient for QI. Weather conditions should not affect eligibility if they are common in the depicted area and as long as the exposure is right. The sky looks bright in the original, but if this edit shows anything, it's that the original still has lots of detail and is not overexposed. --Dschwen 10:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the natural view is as bright as the original capture. --Beyond silence 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done The artifacts are fixed. Thanks. Please revote! --Beyond silence 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Nope, they are still there, like small drops of milk. Also, notice the bands of gray in the cloud at left - we call that "posterization". In the present case it should be the result of a wild contrast enhancement - Alvesgaspar 19:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Oppose over-contrasted. Lycaon 10:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 CommentThe contrast didn't touched, only change on bright parts. --Beyond silence 21:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Result:  0 support (excluding the nominator),  2 oppose -> not promoted to QI --Tony Wills 12:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice view on Schneeberg

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

NZ Red Admiral (Vanessa gonerilla)-4

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

Giulianova porto

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss

  • Nomination Is the color of this new version better? --Luigi Chiesa 08:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Review

 Support I think the composition is a little odd, but if Alves thinks its good then it must be :-). I think the second version has been ttastefully improved. :-) --Tony Wills 09:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Result:  1 support (excluding the nominator),  0 oppose -> promoted to QI --Tony Wills 10:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Grossular Garnet

[edit]

User:Dschwen/Quality images candidates bot test/Discuss