Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 24 2015

Consensual review

edit

File:Barcelona March 2015-8a.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Agbar Tower in the morning. Barcelona, Spain -- Alvesgaspar 19:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 13:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The tower is too "fat". Please resize!--Paris 16 09:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support the top is a not very sharp but it's acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 05:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Hubertl 18:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Bsmalley 03:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted Code 11:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Magdeburg Skulpturenpark 2629.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Statue at Skulpturenpark Magdeburg (reappearance, i still like it) --Ailura 09:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Although declined in January it is renominated without any change. --Cccefalon 10:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It was declined in 2013 without technical reason, i will fix the newly found CA later today. --Ailura 11:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
      • The technical reason for decline, was: "I think that the focal length (f/16) was not a good choice here, because the sculpture does not really stand out". It was declined by two experienced nominators, Poco a poco and Mattbuck, so I consider this decline als valid. --Cccefalon 13:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
        • that comment was on a different image 2628 (i didn't renominate that). This one ist f/1.4. --Ailura 13:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
          • You are right, the declining comment by Mattbuck was "Opposite problem here, you've managed to make the statue look like a toy." --Cccefalon 13:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
            • And there is no rule against that. --Ailura 13:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
              • The matter was discussed in the past, but there was no consensus about allowing a second nomination. [1] --Cccefalon 13:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
                • Needs discussion anyway, but i'll fix the ca first. --Ailura 14:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
                  • Sure. My advice would be: Withdraw the photo, get a consent on the talk page and if positive, renominate again. --Cccefalon 14:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Worked on the CA, renomination and "looks like a toy" are not against any rules. --Ailura 06:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Sending the image to CR against my advice and while there is a running discussion on the talk page is extremly disrespectful. What are you expecting from the fellow reviewers by forcing a renomination of a declined image? --Cccefalon 08:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I changed the picture and i want to hear more opinions about it, i heard yours, thank you for that. The decline happened two years ago without discussion and without proper or correctable reason. i did not know anything about other current reappearances and i don't want this vote to be about not existing rules. --Ailura 10:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Certainly not the most fascinating QIC ever by composition (main subject very small) but barely acceptable from a technical point of view, albeit the statue’s left hand shows a bit motion blur (???). Sharpness acceptable, no noise, no denoising artifacts, minor CA on the blurry background negligible IMHO --Kreuzschnabel 07:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my previous decline (the statue look[s] like a toy) (thanks Cccefalon). Now I grant there is nothing specifically in the rules which says "statues may not look like toys", but I consider it an aspect of composition. It distracts from the scene. Mattbuck 08:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The picture itself seems ok to me, although the bokeh is really ugly. However, at the moment I'm really annoyed by all these renominations so I'm not going to vote here. --Code 11:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Question Is it possible to have a little crop of the foreground (at least more than a half of the snow)? --Christian Ferrer 11:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    • there is a cropped version of the same picture in the categories already, but i can try this in the evening. --Ailura 11:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Sorry, i think the cropped version is ok the way it is, go ahead declining this one. --Ailura 17:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice bokeh. --Pölkkyposkisolisti 17:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Definitely good quality to me. --DKrieger 19:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support per DKrieger --Palauenc05 13:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Quality is very good in full size, including the bokeh. But the composition is not the best, owing to the vertical line in the background. That is most perceived when we look at the picture as a whole. Alvesgaspar 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't think all this nitpicking about composition is necessary when this is just QI, not FPC. The composition is not the best but it is adequate and without obvious flaws, and for me that suffices. --King of Hearts 06:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Bsmalley 03:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --King of Hearts 06:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Jerash Oval Plaza 003.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Jerash Oval Plaza.--لا روسا 00:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline JPEG artifacts in the sky. --MB-one 17:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC).
      Comment sorry, it was an autocorrect and not be artifact or unreal image. You can see the original one, if you want to replace it again.--لا روسا 11:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@MB-one: review it now.--لا روسا 21:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  Support --MB-one 18:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  •   Oppose due to the dust spot and artifaction. I think the original version was generally better, just lacking contrast a bit. Mattbuck 20:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mattbuck: ok, i revert to the original one. Review it again.--لا روسا 22:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mattbuck:   Done I corrected it again, review it please..--لا روسا 14:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why you increase the size of your photos? They become very unsharp.   Oppose for (at least) the current version. --C messier 17:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @C messier: because when i use Windows Photo Editor, it decrease its size very much.--لا روسا 05:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I resize it again, i think it's better now.--لا روسا 05:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Hubertl: it's one support and one oppose and another one for the ex. version not the current one.--لا روسا 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Still very unsharp. I'm afraid the low level of fine detail can't be fixed. --C messier 12:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Then, what should i do, i'm not sure if i modificate it again, won't be fine.--لا روسا 07:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support for the composition. --Palauenc05 18:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • strong   Oppose lack of sharpness --Berthold Werner (talk)+
  • strong   Oppose Unsharp, halos.--Jebulon 10:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Jebulon 21:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)