Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 12 2014

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:2014_Kłodzko,_kościół_Matki_Bożej_Różańcowej_09.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Our Lady of the Rosary church in Kłodzko 1 --Jacek Halicki 20:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    Image quality is good. But this can't be St. Josef - as image description tells us. This should be St. Christopher - as he is holding that big rod. Jacek, if you insist on St. Josef, I will give in. --Johanning 21:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 20:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 Support Thank you, --Johanning 08:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)  Comment moving to Promotion Poco a poco 10:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Schloss_--_2014_--_6656.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fürstbischöfliches Schloss Münster, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 06:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Tilted slightly clockwise, edges could use sharpening. Mattbuck 22:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    • ✓ Fixed Thanks. It's fixed now.--XRay 08:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I'm not convinced this is QI. Mattbuck 21:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Let's ask for another opion.--XRay 07:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, for me not enough detail. --MB-one 13:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 21:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche (Weiler) 2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Herz-Jesu-Kirche (Weiler) --Böhringer 05:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Declined for reason of flooding --Cccefalon 06:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    i vote photos and this ist good. --Ralf Roletschek 21:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp --Uoaei1 06:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support. Of cause sharpness could be better but it is not bad for me. -- Spurzem 17:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough. --Steindy 22:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Clearly unsharp. And I am not surprised, which of the reviewers do not see that. --Cccefalon 04:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Ugh, not even remotely sharp. You'd have to downsample by a factor of 4 before it became even vaguely sharp. Mattbuck 18:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. Why does this image already wear the QI sign? - at least when I click on the description. --Johanning 20:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, in my opinion it's clearly blurry--Lmbuga 16:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 21:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Church_tower_of_uggiano_montefusco_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination church tower of uggiano montefusco --Livioandronico2013 22:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not nearly sharp enough. --Mattbuck 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Other opinions thanks --Livioandronico2013 22:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Not the best composition but sharp enough. -- Spurzem 10:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry no (see the bells)--Jebulon 16:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon --Cccefalon 04:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 21:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)