Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 17 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Westpoort Amsterdam 6674.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Westpoort, Amsterdam. --C messier 12:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, noisy and the fog ruins the picture --Ezarate 19:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Denoised, new curves, but it was hazy. --C messier 13:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support o.k. for me.--Ermell 10:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The chroma noise is obviously seen in the dark areas (container yard in the foreground, dark roofs at the right side of the picture, the ship with the inscription TORM, and some other areas). Try to remove only the chroma noise (this doesn’t affect sharpness significantly), but I doubt about results for there are some other issues: for example, artifacts of oversharping can be found even now, sperical tanks has visible CAs... Dmitry Ivanov 17:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC).
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 23:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Khirokitia near Larnaca 01-2017 img4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Archaeological site of Khirokitia near Larnaca --A.Savin 01:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 1) The shed (roof) is a significant part of the composition, it is the detail attracting viewers’ attention. At the same time the right part of the shed is obviously unsharp (see an image note) 2) The dark shadow under the shed is rather vast. This could be considered as negligible for QI, but the shadow is very noisy (both luminance and chroma noise is visible). 3) The lights on stones tend to overexposure, a significant part of details in lights is obviously lost. In whole, the light condition don’t favour this scene, shadows/lights are very harsh. 4) Blue (violet) CAs are visible (they are minor, though; see notes). Dmitry Ivanov 18:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
  •  Support OK, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 01:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality IMO.--Ermell 20:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Airbus_A350-941_F-WWCF_MSN002_ILA_Berlin_2016_19.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Airbus A350-941 MSN002 at ILA 2016. --Julian Herzog 13:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality and nice one. Possible FP IMO. Very detailed and well composed. --Code 15:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm afraid I don't agree; the sharpness and light are excellent, but I have a problem with the composition. Half the plane is cut out; wing, tail and more.--Peulle 22:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I also have a problem with the composition, the crop is not really well done --Michielverbeek 06:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree with the opposers, as what makes the composition, the front part of the airplane isn't badly cropped, eg. the engines are not cut off, the wheels are not cut. --C messier 13:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good --Christian Ferrer 16:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, fresh and interesting composition. Dmitry Ivanov 17:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
  •  Oppose The composition isn´t working for me. --Milseburg 21:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality and very good shot. -- Spurzem 22:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Ezarate 18:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:VDNKh Pavilion No 18 Republic of Belarus.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow. VDNKh. Pavilion No. 18 Republic of Belarus. --Dmitry Ivanov 11:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, but it is too soft. --A.Savin 16:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am not quite sure about your verdict. Shadows are really rather soft, but, I think, in acceptable borders (I suppose, there are positive moments in this softness in shadows: it gives some pseudo-three-dimensionality to the picture, makes it more “real”); and the lights of the building are sharp enough. Let’s discuss the photo. Dmitry Ivanov 18:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. I see no lack. The composition is o. k. too. -- Spurzem 22:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The statue on top is too unsharp IMO.--Ermell 10:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the review. As of sharpness of the figure’s surface. The statue is covered with golden smalt, and it is rather difficult to see sharp, clear lines on this sculpture. The depicting of this glittering, playing in sunlight surface of the figure is quite natural. As of sharpness of the outline of the figure. Strictly speaking, it is satisfactory at 100%. But if you doubt, please upload the image and examine it at 800% or more (when separate pixels are seen). You can easily see that the width of the transitional zone between the brown sculpture and the blue sky is 1...2, pixels, maybe, in some, not vast, areas 3 pixels. Not so bad, I think. Dmitry Ivanov 16:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC).
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC))

File:Via_Telemaco_Signorini1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Via Telemaco Signorini, Riomaggiore. --СССР 23:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose CA, unsharp, too dark --Jacek Halicki 00:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)  Support --Jacek Halicki 22:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Info Thank you for the review. Johann Jaritz was very kind to upload an improved version --СССР 04:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. ✓ Done @Jacek Halicki: Please, take another look at the image now. -- Johann Jaritz 04:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - The roof of the building on the left side is a bit soft, but overall, the picture looks fine to me. -- Ikan Kekek 10:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Ermell 11:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO, too blueish. --C messier 12:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 17:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)