Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 26 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Winterhausen, die ehemalige Nikolauskapelle DmD-6-79-206-2 foto3 2016-08-07 12.03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Winterhausen-Bayern, chapel --Michielverbeek 20:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • A bit leaning to the left --A.Savin 01:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I did a small perspective improvement --Michielverbeek 20:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I compared both versions and not sure anything changed? Just check the verticals of the tower. --A.Savin 02:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It was a small change, let's have a 3rd opinion --Michielverbeek 20:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, Michielverbeek, but that's not straight. Please look at the windows of the house, for example. --Basotxerri 16:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok I have got a 3rd opinion, it's a decline, I withdraw, --Michielverbeek 21:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 23:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Villa_Badoer_Fratta_Polesine_facciata_by_Marcok_2009-08-16_n08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Villa Badoer in Fratta Polesine, province of Rovigo, Italy, designed by Andrea Palladio in 1554 and built 1556-1563. --Marcok 20:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment I'd recommend cropping a bit, both to be more symmetrical and to reduce the amount of empty foreground. Crisco 1492 00:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crisco: In my opinion, the composition is good enough for QI, and I wouldn't hold up a nom over something I wouldn't decline over if it weren't fixed. I would normally just promote while adding the suggestion as a side note. In this particular case, however, I find the building too unsharp. --King of Hearts 18:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment As should be clear from my habits here, I don't "hold up a nom over something I wouldn't decline over if it weren't fixed". I noticed the unsharpness, and although I was judging based on the age of the image (i.e. against my expectations for a similar 7-year-old image) the unsharpness at the foreground was part of my recommendation for a crop. I should have mentioned it. Crisco 1492 06:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support To me, this is good enough for QI already, but I would love for the sky to be denoised a bit. I don't find the building too unsharp for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 06:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, especially top left part of building. Also perspective issue.--Peulle 16:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 17:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:RUS-2016-Aerial-SPB-Petrovsky_Stadium.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Petrovsky Stadium, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Godot13 03:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough --Michielverbeek 05:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI. --A.Savin 12:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --SKas 10:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek 11:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK sharpness for an image of such resolution.--Peulle 15:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good photo, but is it covered by russian freedom of panorama regulations? --Smial 08:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 12:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Perpignan Maillol La Pensée (1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination "La Pensée" or "La Méditerranéenne", bronze statue (1905) by Aristide Maillol in Perpignan. --Palauenc05 08:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree Very unpleasant lighting with harsh shadows and lots of ugly reflections. --Smial 11:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support No featured picture of course but QI for me -- Spurzem 18:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. -- Ikan Kekek 05:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial. And EXIF data missing. --XRay 06:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Spurzem. Lighting harsh, but handled rather well. No important details lost, and the reflections actually emphasize her body. Crisco 1492 06:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 Comment Reflections can of course be used to emphasize the shape or contours of an object. If used meaningful like in e.g. File:Pfeffermuehlen S7301812.jpg. The photo of a statue or an artwork is very similar to a human portrait, where direct frontal lighting is allways a reason for decline. -- Smial 12:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 Comment @ Smial: A very doubtful comparison. In your pepper mill picture, the so-called "meaningful" reflections completely blow out certain parts of the object (let alone other criteria to be discussed), whereas nothing of the statue is blown out. --Palauenc05 14:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 Comment The peppermill was intended as an example for lighting style and once had educational purpose. As you may have noticed, it is not a QI. A base for discussions. So the setup for that image is also available. --Smial 15:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support vote; it could be sharped, but just about OK for QI.--Peulle 16:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 12:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)