Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 20 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Burg-Hiltpoltstein.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Burg Hiltpoltstein --Ermell 12:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 13:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fails criterion 3:Quality images shall have a meaningful file name --Jebulon 14:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC) it's a good name and QI
    • Now, yes.--Jebulon 20:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Then I understood that wrong, forgive me dad ;) --Ralf Roletschek 21:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
        • You are forgiven, Junge.--Jebulon 22:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 12:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Burg-Zwernitz.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Burg Zwernitz --Ermell 12:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 13:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fails criterion 3) Quality images shall have a meaningful file name --Jebulon 14:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 Comment It should be easy to complete the file name. Therefore I see no reason to decline the image. -- Spurzem 07:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It should be easy too, for example, to remove a dustspot, correct a perspective, adjust a contrast, crop a composition etc etc. For one of these rationales you will decline, and you will be right. The reason is that there are rules here in QIC, with some criteria you have to complete. The third is not. Note my fault, please read the guidelines.--Jebulon 09:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC) it's a QI
    • Ralf, why do you play this game ??--Jebulon 20:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
      • It's not a game. Everybody can say here yes or no / support or oppose. Some likes HDR, other no. Also a picture take oppose and support. Some say, without english description she don't can support, to me are english descriptions more or less useless. And to me a Filename is exclusively a tecnical thing as Camera-model, aperture and others. --Ralf Roletschek 18:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Numeral and generic file names are no-go. Please, Ermell, if you don't have file mover rights, propose a proper name. I will revoke my oppose after renamaning. --Cccefalon 05:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support File has been renamed. --Tsungam 08:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. For educational reason, I hoped, that the author is making the move himself. We do not help by fixing the issue for the nominator but by making the nominators learning by doing. --Cccefalon 10:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, he tried. But I didn't move the file, just changed the name here. --Tsungam 10:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that's good. Glad to hear! Goal achieved :-) --Cccefalon 10:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 12:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Brandenburg,_Caputh,_Schloss_NIK_6441.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Der Ostflügel vom Schloss Caputh in Brandenburg --Nightflyer 20:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 19:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, perspective issues --Jacek Halicki 23:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)--Jacek Halicki 23:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Perspektive korrigiert. Gruss --Nightflyer 19:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 12:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Achau,_Lanzendorfer_Straße_1_-_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Holy trinity column (marked with 1867) and a former workshop at Achau, Lanzendorfer Straße 1, Lower Austria. --Herzi Pinki 08:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree, the shadows are much too dark. Please check the monitor. Easy to fix! --Hubertl 08:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me, can´t see any benefit for the object in brightning up --Isiwal 09:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I inspected the shadow at the EIZO calibrated monitor and could trace enough details to say, that it is - apart from some minor areas - technically ok. However, the harsh shadow is due to its size disturbing. Can be fixed and I am ready to promote after brightening. --Cccefalon 14:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Somewhat oversharpened, but I really cannot see a problem with the lighting. Illumination with grazing light is a completely legitimate photographic method to highlight structures and is well done here. -- Smial 23:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 12:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)