Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 26 2016

Consensual review

edit

File:Mausolée_libyco-punique_de_Dougga_01.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination night view of the Lybico-punic Mausoleum in Dougga, Beja Tunisia --IssamBarhoumi 10:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Sorry, unsharp, lack of details --Berthold Werner 13:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Berthold Werner could you please have a look again I improved details in the photo --IssamBarhoumi 22:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Really better, but imho still not good enough fpr QI. I sent it to CR to get more opinions. --Berthold Werner 07:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I must agree with Berthold Werner; I could forgive the posterized sky given that it's a difficult night shot, but the subject (the mausoleum) must be a lot sharper for the image to reach QI status.--Peulle 07:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree with the others. It's a really artistic picture, but the mausoleum is not sharp enough. It also appears to be tilting back as it goes up. Very hard picture to take really well, though, as there is also bright light to the right of the mausoleum, so if you had a longer exposure, you would have gotten more blown areas, I imagine. -- Ikan Kekek 10:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 05:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Landsort_August_2016_24.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Abandoned coastal artillery bunker in Landsort,. --ArildV 18:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • There are dust spots in the sky, could you remove them, please?  Oppose The plant and the wall in the foreground are too unsharp, IMO. Not sufficient for a QI, sorry. --Basotxerri 18:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I guess the comments about the wall and blurred plants was about this images, I disagree. The plant and wall is not unsharp, only out of focus. Only the bunker is in focus, and it was a a deliberate (and justified) choice imo. --ArildV 18:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see your point of view, but IMO this is not a good composition for a QI, sorry. --Basotxerri 18:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I think you have the right to make this artistic choice, as the deliberate blurring is not so drastic that it's disturbing at full-page size on my monitor. However, the bit of a branch at the extreme upper left corner is disturbing to me. I'm usually reluctant to recommend cloning things out, but a horizontal crop risks cropping the bunker too close on top. Would you perhaps consider a vertical crop on the left? -- Ikan Kekek 07:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Main motif is sharp, very good lighting, very good composition. For com:fpc I would also demand cropping or cloning out that small branch top left to get more "wow", but here at qic this is a very minor issue. --Smial 11:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Having a blurry foreground to a sharp main motif further in seldom goes down well with this community, but it is a perfectly acceptable choise as far as photography in general is concerned. Just want to eco Ikan's and Smial's point about cloning out that upper left branch. --W.carter 14:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 12:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Нарышкин_Сергей_Евгеньевич_2.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Нарышкин Сергей Евгеньевич - председатель Государственной Думы. --Svklimkin 20:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose the head is overexposed Ezarate 22:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree, this is not a overexposion at all. --Hubertl 02:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Might be a wee bit sharper, but generally quite good.--Peulle 20:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Hubertl --Palauenc05 14:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry: the slightly overexposed head might be negligible, but the overall sharpness is clearly not satisfactory for me. --A.Savin 17:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Not my best friend, but QI.--Jebulon 19:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Any reason? (For QI of course, not for the missing friendship...) --A.Savin 21:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
No, only because you opposed... I'm kidding. It is not usual to provide reasons for a support, but I don't see here any overexposition, and the sharpness is acceptable in my opinion. --Jebulon 11:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 05:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)