Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 09 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Plate_on_Giovanni_Paisiello's_home_in_Taranto.jpg

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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

[edit]

  • 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)