Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 16 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Okba_Mosque_Main_Dome_6.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dome details in Mosque Okba in Kairouan --IssamBarhoumi 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too much noise reduction. Lack of details. --Ermell 14:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment dear --Ermell I learnd how to remove noise and keeping details have a look now --IssamBarhoumi 00:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Worth a discussion. --Ermell 22:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Ermell and IMO bad composition: If the focus is the lamp, the picture is too tight at bottom IMO. If the focus is other thing, the picture is blurry IMO--Lmbuga 21:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

File:16-08-30-Babīte_railway_station-RR2_3688.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination ER2 at Babīte railway station in Riga, Latvia --Ralf Roletschek 11:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Sehr schön! Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 11:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the sky is definitely gone. Yes, I have checked the histogram too. --A.Savin 12:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question Counter-question: Is a well-displayed sky essential for the pic of a railcar which occupies almost the entire field? --Jacek79 18:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I say yes if the sky-part is as big as it is here since it end up casting a bad light on the railcar. A QI is more the whole picture, not only the main motif. So for this I will  Oppose. Sorry. cart-Talk 09:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I'm undecided about this one because the train is depicted pretty well, and I'm not sure whether denying QI for this degree of haziness is being too picky or not. But A.Savin, what is the histogram and how does a person check it? -- Ikan Kekek 03:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I meant the diagram showing the level of exposure of each colour channel, it is available in Photoshop (for example). --A.Savin 05:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info right, the sky was blown out. new version uploaded. --Ralf Roletschek 20:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Much better version. Left foreground is a little unfocused, but that's defensible. In general, the train is clear enough and the entire picture is clearer. -- Ikan Kekek 01:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support With the sky fixed I think the pic is good to go. W.carter 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I'll go along with that too. --Peulle 09:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 20:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 19:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Catedral_Alemana,_Berlín,_Alemania,_2016-04-22,_DD_13-15_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: German Cathedral, Berlin, Germany --Poco a poco 11:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment Bad perspective and very weak corner sharpness. Too much noise reduction, too. Don't know if this is fixable. --Code 12:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry for nominating such a cucumber, shame on me. Still, I've uploaded a ✓ new version. Poco a poco 19:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hm. Sorry, still not convinced. I know that the perspective itself is a compositional choise, but the building seems additionally still to be leaning to the right. I'll  Decline so that you can send it to consensual review. --Code 05:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, please, let's discuss. I've uploaded another version to round up the perspective issues. --Poco a poco 22:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me--Ermell (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - This version looks much better than the 2 previous versions, but looking at the floor in front of the cathedral, it looks like it arches up to the center. That's one fault I don't see in the first 2 versions. If not for that, I'd vote to support the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek 03:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 22:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wide angle and too near distance leads to improper perspective. First version looks least distorted. -- Smial 09:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not convinced either. Mild lack of sharpness in not-so-important areas can be fixed (USM), but non-linear perspective distortions are very hard to cope with (as they are typically related to the lens itself). --Jacek79 19:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment (es) Lo siento, en mi opinión la distorsión de perspectiva horizontal es brutal debido a la corrección de la distorsión de perspectiva vertical. En mi opinión hay que atender tanto a la distorsión vertical como a la horizontal (no se dice eso en Commons:Image guideline). No voto, porque a pesar de ser una estupenda imagen, sigue las normas con respecto a la distorsión de Commons:Image guideline y estas están confundidas: No se puede abusar de la distorsión horizontal por corregir la distorsión vertical. En conclusión, excesiva distorsión horizontal, en mi opinión; pero seguramente estoy muy confundido y no sé de lo que hablo cuando opino (ojo: contigo no me siento desconsiderado)--Lmbuga 21:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC). Ya me gustaría que el edificio tuviese algo (o mucho) de distorsión vertical y resultase natural.--Lmbuga 21:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Yo te pediría que hicieses fotos naturales, lo que te gusta, y que pases de lo que dicen. Aprende de lo que dicen, pero ten autonomía--Lmbuga 21:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC).
    • Tú ya lo sabes: Tú vales--Lmbuga 01:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC) ya es 16. ya no es mi cumpleaños. Todo se acaba, menos la calidad. Ya son 54 (No puedo creérmelo). Cumplo el 15 de septiembre a las 6 de la mañamna
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 04:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)