Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 09 2015

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Consensual review

File:Plate_on_Giovanni_Paisiello's_home_in_Taranto.jpg

  • Nomination Plate on Giovanni Paisiello's home in Taranto --Livioandronico2013 13:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Σπάρτακος 16:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry no. Completely blurry and noisy. Did you correct the lacking letters by yourself ?--Jebulon 16:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Completely blurry and noisy,we are watching the same photo Jebulon? Livioandronico2013 19:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Yes. Did you correct the lacking letters by yourself ?--Jebulon 21:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The top of the image shows jpeg artifacts and lack of detail. --C messier 21:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with C messier. For the blur and noise I'm not really sure whether it's the photo or the motif. --ℇsquilo 08:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 07:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Ceiling in Vatican Museums-Livio.jpg

  • Nomination Ceiling in Vatican Museums --Livioandronico2013 22:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 04:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient description and categorization are a lack of respect of our common QIC guidelines.--Jebulon 19:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No author ? no date ? No more precise location ?--Jebulon 16:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Location is Vatican Museums,for the rest I don't know. I don't ask every minutes all this informations going around for the museums,can be annoying. Sorry. --Livioandronico2013 21:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Those informations are A MANDATORY for a QI, sorry. You may be followed by your usual supporters, but not matter, this is "factually" NOT a QI, even ornated with this pretty green seal.--Jebulon 21:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Please read the guidelines before voting.--Jebulon 21:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 20:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Please read the guidelines before voting.--Jebulon 21:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Please read the guidelines before voting.--Jebulon 21:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, Daddy. I vote with pro because description and categorisation are sufficient. Here isn't the competition of quality description and categorisation. --Ralf Roletschek 09:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't understand nothing as usual, young Padawan. 1)QIC is NOT a competition at all in any way, 2)description and categorization ARE PART OF QI process, not only the photo. 3)You are disrespectful and just deserve a public Tracht Prügel for that.--Jebulon 10:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Ralf. Description is terse but sufficient. --Esquilo 08:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree a 100% with Jebulon, you should take your time to give a correct file description as requested. --Moroder 17:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Cows in Caucasus.JPG

  • Nomination Cows on a mountain pasture in vicinities of Krasnaya Polyana, Sochi. --Sergei Kazantsev 19:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. Sky overexposed --Moroder 06:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: Sky overexposed. Colour handling and sharpening resulted in white alias line around the cow. --Cccefalon 05:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Σπάρτακος 16:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose cow not identified, lack of details, halo, CA, clarity parameter looks overworked. --Carschten 12:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
✓ New version --Sergei Kazantsev 13:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support New version is better. --ℇsquilo 08:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Apollo_del_Belvedere_in_Vatican.jpg

  • Nomination Apollo del Belvedere --Livioandronico2013 13:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Excellent point of view and composition for this famous work. But some parts are overexposed IMO, and there is some noise. As an example, please see File:Apollo del belvedere, 01.JPG for comparison and better details. Anyway, I wish a third opinion before promoting.--Jebulon 09:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support --Σπάρτακος 16:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Higher exposure than Jebulons example, but not overexposed. Details on the belly is still clearly discernable. Better point of view. --ℇsquilo 08:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Dian HP playing the keyboard, 2015-08-22 01.jpg

  • Nomination Indonesian composer Dian HP playing the keyboard Crisco 1492 01:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good enough.--PetarM 07:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, I see the same issues than another nominations of the uploader, too much noise reduction with loss of quality and probably ISO noise Ezarate 21:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I think this one is ok. Mydreamsparrow 17:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Σπάρτακος 16:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 07:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)