Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 08 2014
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
-
- Nomination Couvent des dominicains (Guebwiller, France) --ComputerHotline 20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality.But you take all the niche next time --Livioandronico2013 20:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Saliwangan, Sabah: Shunting work with the diesel lokomotive 6105 of Sabah State Railway. --Cccefalon 20:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 20:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Town hall and war memorial, Bouteilles-Saint-Sébastien, Dordogne, France. --JLPC 16:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Nomination Ferryman's sign in Isle of Berder, Larmor-Baden, Morbihan, France. --JLPC 16:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 19:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Moritzburg Castle, Saxony. -- ~~~~
- Promotion Good quality, even though bit brighter should be better imo.. --JLPC 16:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Stained glass windows in Saints James and Agnes Basilica in Nysa 1 --Jacek Halicki 13:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Town hall in Radków 3 --Jacek Halicki 13:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination A balance mechanism within the working section of the R52 wind tunnel. Farnborough Royal Aircraft Establishment. By User:Msemmett --Lewis Hulbert 12:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --JLPC 16:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Nomination Slab of the Oaks, Campo Lameiro. Galicia -CL11 --Lmbuga 09:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Altamira Palace, Elche, Spain --Poco a poco 09:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --JLPC 16:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Valencia cathedral, Valencia, Spain --Poco a poco 09:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion
Support Good quality--Lmbuga 09:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination St Ursula church, Valencia, Spain --Poco a poco 09:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality--Lmbuga 09:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Juanes church, Valencia, Spain --Poco a poco 09:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 12:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Consulate of the Sea, Silk Market, Valencia, Spain --Poco a poco 09:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Decline OK for the use and abuse of fish-eye lens, but the lack of symmetry is really disturbing (please see notes)--Jebulon 09:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
New version, cannot understand the expectation abou the height of the lamps, for that I should have been in the middle of the room, is that a must? Poco a poco 17:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Audi A1 --Berthold Werner 08:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Nomination Ceiling fresco of the the pilgrimage church of Maria Langegg (Lower Austria): The Assumption of Mary. --Uoaei1 06:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Rosenbad and the street Strömgatan in Stockholm. --ArildV 06:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Nomination Kota Kinabalu, Sabah: WISMA MUIS --Cccefalon 05:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Kota Kinabalu, Sabah: Sabah State Archives --Cccefalon 05:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Fuchsia 'Checkerboard'.
Famberhorst 04:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC) - Promotion OK for me. --JLPC 16:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination Fuchsia 'Checkerboard'.
-
- Nomination Detail of the west facade of Notre-Dame, Paris, France --XRay 03:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Botanischer Garten, Berlin, Germany --XRay 03:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Stained glass in the Basilica in Nysa 7 --Jacek Halicki 19:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Ok. --Uoaei1 09:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Nomination Scotch Ringlet (Erebia aethiops), Giresun - Turkey -- Zeynel Cebeci 20:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Uoaei1 09:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Nomination Huerto del Cura (Priest's vegetable garden), Elche, Spain --Poco a poco 16:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --JLPC 07:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Nomination: Jakobskerk in Winterswijk, Gelderland, Netherlands --XRay 05:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Review needed
-
- Nomination Petroglyph in Campo Lameiro. Galicia -CL20 --Lmbuga 00:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Withdrawn Oversharpened, not enough contrast to see the petroglyph. It may be that it is nearly invisible in person, but the sharpening isn't helping any. Oblique angle might have helped. --Generic1139 19:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination The petroglyph is not visible. It's not a problem of the picture--Lmbuga 22:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC). 
Comment The picture must be taken before sunset--Lmbuga 08:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Nature reserve Torfowisko pod Zieleńcem 1 --Jacek Halicki 18:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion A little over-sharpened. A small amount of CA in whitest tress on the left - probably not significant. A graduated filter on the bottom raising the shadows would solve the biggest problem, that the image is too dark on the bottom, particularly the bottom right. --Generic1139 19:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Done--Jacek Halicki 19:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Better. --Generic1139 16:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination 153355 at Nottingham. Mattbuck 06:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Support a bit blurred because of the rain : acceptable --Christian Ferrer 10:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Museum of Anthropology UBC --Xicotencatl 23:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea, but I wonder if the focal point is too far away - that post centre-frame seems to be out of focus. Mattbuck 10:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you are right, but there is nothing I can do about it unfortunately. --Xicotencatl 02:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)It works to me for a QI.--Jebulon 15:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC) - Promotion
- Nomination Museum of Anthropology UBC --Xicotencatl 23:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Angkor Wat, Cambodia --Poco a poco 16:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Tilted ccw --Cccefalon 08:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Done Poco a poco 21:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Support Good. Is the white frame normal ?--Jebulon 15:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
_20140903_1.jpg)
.jpg)
,_Jacobskerk_--_2014_--_0170.jpg)
Consensual review
[edit]File:Paris,_Hôtel_de_Ville_--_2014_--_1714.jpg
[edit]
- Nomination Hôtel de Ville, Paris, France --XRay 04:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion
Oppose Fixed I tried to fix this problem. Hopefully it's OK now.--XRay 06:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC) Support Upper crop could have been more generous, but nevertheless QI for me now. --Iifar 12:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Support --Livioandronico2013 14:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
File:Stiftskirche_Admont_Orgel_01.JPG
[edit]
- Nomination Nave and organ of Admont Abbey Church, Styria --Uoaei1 07:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Decline
Very Nice.--Livioandronico2013 07:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC) OpposeI have to disagree I'm afraid. Nice view, but at full size, the image is not sharp at all. Camera shake prehaps? The windows are also overexposed.--KTC 09:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Yes KTC have right, i apologise --Livioandronico2013 19:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
File:Cologne_Germany_St-Kunibert-05.jpg
[edit]
- Nomination Cologne, Germany: Interior of church St. Kunibert --Cccefalon 17:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
There are some reflection spots (see notes). Can you try to get rid of these, and to reduce the brightness of the windows? --Uoaei1 11:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I removed the spots and recovered the westwork windows. Please, Uoaei1, have a look. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Well done. Maybe the windows are now a bit overdone (too dark) --Uoaei1 16:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Alright, I set the local brightness to a value between the first and second version. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → 
Promoted --Cccefalon 04:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Promoted --Cccefalon 04:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)File:Chevrolet_Coupe_Typ_AB_BW_2011-09-03_13-54-37.JPG
[edit]
- Nomination Chevrolet National Serie AB Coupé --Berthold Werner 06:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Promotion The retouched plate is a no-go for QI. Also the shadows have to be raised. The perspective needs to be fixed. Some slight magenta CA right side. All resolvable. --Cccefalon 10:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
ok. I have removed the ca and corrected the perspective. The blurred license plate is not a "no-go" for QI, there are lots of QIs with blurred license plates and in this case it was addionally wish of the organiser. --Berthold Werner 08:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Oppose Sorry, it cannot be a QI then. According to QI Guideline "Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive." --Cccefalon 19:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Not accepted, two reason are already given. --Berthold Werner 10:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC) - Support I don’t think the blurred plate impairs the quality or value of this image too severely though it would have been nicer without that manipulation. Why should a blurred plate be a no-go? There’s clearly no intended deception – or who would think when viewing the image the place was really looking like this? --Kreuzschnabel 07:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I took the liberty to apply the required Retouched template. Still, this retouching is an immediate and dominant eye catcher when you open the file. Even in the thumbnal here, it attracts your attention. For me, it even fails the well-done criteria. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support : lots of pictures have already been promoted with a blurred plate (one example among them : File:Citroën DS 21 27 Quai Anatole France license plate blanked 2012-06-02 cropped.jpg). If rules needs to be changed, I think a discussion is needed too before we change.--JLPC (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- @JLPC: , @Cccefalon: Just for information, I blurred the license plate on the above photo, because the car was illegally parked, and I did not want to become part of a possible issue between the police and the car owner by publishing the photo with a visible license plate. For the case above, I also think blurring the plate is reasonable mitigation from the guideline, as it was specifically requested by the organizer. --Slaunger 18:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Slaunger: : The difference is , that your retouchement is perfectly done. --Cccefalon 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- OpposeI see your point, and I also agree the removal of the license plate information could have been done more elegantly. Here it is distracting because the blurred area is completely smooth, while the surrounding parts has texture and structure. --Slaunger 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Slaunger: : The difference is , that your retouchement is perfectly done. --Cccefalon 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Info I just checked Images with blanked out license plates. The above mentioned photo of mine is actually currently the only QI (well a version with a different crop is QI too) in that category. Of course that may be because many images, with blurred license plates are not even categorized to this category, like, for instance, the nominated picture, which I have now added to that category. --Slaunger 20:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I generally reject those photos. But I do not crosscheck every review of the buddies here. --Cccefalon 20:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support QI for me. Yann 17:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think it needs brightening (yes I know, that's rich coming from me). Mattbuck 09:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose
Not done Mattbuck 21:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)- Done I didn't saw your hint in the long list of comments. I made it now brighter. --Berthold Werner 08:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 09:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Idem--Jebulon 20:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? - --Archaeodontosaurus 09:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe 11:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)