Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 02 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:16-11-16-Glasgow_Airport-RR2_7322.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Glasgow International Airport --Ralf Roletschek 12:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 13:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp! --A.Savin 01:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I'm not quite as emphatic as A.Savin, but on balance, I agree with him, not that sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 05:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is indeed unsharp.--Peulle 07:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, motion blur. --Smial 20:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 19:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Church_San_Lorenzo_Maggiore_belltower.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Belltower of the San Lorenzo Maggiore church in Naples. --Moroder 20:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 22:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I must disagree. The sharpness isn't bad, but the edges of the tower look strange. Halos/ chromatic aberration? And the sky looks ... green. Let's hear some more opinions.--Peulle 12:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment - I see the fringing near the top of the campanile, too. I would ask Moroder to fix it, if I thought he would. I'm not sure whether to oppose a promotion on that basis, though. The color of the sky does seem a little off, but perhaps that's a possible sky color. -- Ikan Kekek 05:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Posterised sky. --Smial 20:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 19:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Kleeberg_von_Westen_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kleeberg (Labuch), Styria, from the west --Clemens Stockner 14:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support OK. --Nikhilb239 15:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but no QI for me: too soft (especially in the left part), and most of the picture in dark shadows. --A.Savin 06:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A.Savin, not a QI for me. --Basotxerri 17:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 19:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Bonn-bundeskunsthalle-parkomanie-01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Parkomanie, eine Ausstellung der Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. --AKirch-Bonn 11:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 11:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now: sorry, but please fix all the chromatic aberrations first. --A.Savin 14:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - It would be nice if you could increase the sharpness a bit as well. -- Ikan Kekek 05:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I hoped for some action. Failing that, I now oppose. -- Ikan Kekek 23:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 19:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Weismain-interior-270090-HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of the Catholic parish church of St. Martin in Weismain in Upper Franconia --Ermell 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose - The composition is beautiful, but to me, this is not a QI because the details of the statues on the altar cannot be made out. No problem if you'd like to take this to CR. -- Ikan Kekek 09:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough, IMHO, the reason you can't see enough detail is because the photo is 16 Mpix. --C messier 14:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question - You're saying it would have to be even bigger than that for me to see enough detail? I don't get your point. -- Ikan Kekek 05:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, the photo is not large enough to revile more details in the altar. --C messier 15:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. But in that case, that means to me that it's not big enough to be a QI of this particular composition. The other photos Ermell took from this series that were not as far from the altar were all better than this and clear QIs. Ikan Kekek 21:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Given that the motif is a wider view of the interior of the church and not just the altar, it is acceptable. --C messier 15:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per C messier, this is quite OK, IMO. --Basotxerri 17:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Also per C messier. --Haeferl 00:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support No doubt --Uoaei1 07:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment No reason to drag this out. I give up. -- Ikan Kekek 09:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very well balanced tonemapping with natural appearance. Somewhat oversharpened, but acceptable. --Smial 09:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 19:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)