Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 31 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Santa Maria del Popolo September 2015-2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome -- Alvesgaspar 23:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The building is a bit distorted at the left. Can you correct it? -- Spurzem 12:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC) --
     Comment I don't understand. Moving to CR Alvesgaspar 10:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It is hanging to the left on the right side,--Moroder 18:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC) otherwise QI for me
  •  Oppose Per Moroder. The right part is not straight. Revokable opposition of course (easy to fix)--Jebulon 18:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Fireworks_lugano_2011-3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fireworks, Swiss National Day Aug 1st, 2011, Lugano, Switzerland. --Pmo83 08:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unbalanced composition: It needs more space at right. And it's tited IMO--Lmbuga 23:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment The composition follows the rule of thirds, the tilt is far from obvious IMHO, other opinions ? --Pmo83 08:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the tilt is very obvious. And although you yourself agree that there is a tilt, you start a discussion instead of doing this little repair step? Come on, this forum is a chance to enhance your photos. I will revoke my oppose after fixing the issue. --Cccefalon 06:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO, there is no tilt. The impression of a tilt is due to the fact that the coast is further away in the right side of the image. The building on the left have vertical edges. Fixing this would mean artificially bending it, as if the photographer was facing the coast. Definitely not an enhancement in my opinion. --TNo 09:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 Comment kindly watch the surface of the water and the mast of the ship, mooring on calm water. --Cccefalon 11:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It´s tilted, no doubt. --Hubertl 13:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I maintain the tilt is not obvious (i.e., I cannot exclude there is one but I personally do not see it), as there is no clear line that one expect to be vertical or horizontal, and the reviewer himself presented it as his opinion and not a fact, I think it is valuable to ask for more opinions in this case. I opened a discussion most of all for the first remark of the review about the composition, with which I could not agree. Finally, according to the reviews, I slightly rotated the image. --Pmo83 09:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support No tilt, verticals are verticals. No horizon: there is a coast line, probably not perpendicular. A good picture IMO.--Jebulon 18:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 06:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Narrenschiffbrunnen,_Nürnberg_June_2015-4709.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ship of fools fountain, Nuremberg, Bavaria --Hubertl 08:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very good -- Spurzem 08:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but misfocused imo. If you want to use a narrow DoF, which in this case fits perfect, you have to focus carefully. Here it's in the nose, not in the eyes. --Kadellar 16:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Sólo se ve bien con el nariz; lo esencial es invisible a los ojos (El Principito, Antoine de Saint Exupéry) ;-) --Hubertl 01:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    Hahahaha that's true. --Kadellar 09:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Σπάρτακος 18:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree in principle with Kadellar but a more generous DOF is needed here. Also, the light and the background are not that good. Alvesgaspar 20:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Kadellar.--Ermell 13:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of the background. The rest makes me remain neutral, I've no precise opinion about the focus here, but I dislike the "thing" behind the head.--Jebulon 18:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 06:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Jaguar_(Panthera_onca_palustris)_female_Piquiri_River.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Jaguar (Panthera onca palustris) female, Piquiri River, the Pantanal, Brazil --Charlesjsharp 15:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO too much noise. --XRay 15:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ DoneAgreed, thanks, noise reduced. Charlesjsharp 16:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
     Neutral Better. but sharpness could be better.--XRay 15:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 09:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still too noisy, which affects the detail of the subject. I'm afraid this is not fixable. Alvesgaspar 20:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Fixed. Another opinion please. Charlesjsharp 10:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry. I like the pose, but yes, it is noisy, and unsharp additionally.--Jebulon 18:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)