Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 22 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Münster,_Domplatz,_Wochenmarkt_--_2019_--_2647.jpg[edit]

File:Tessaloniki_BW_2017-10-05_18-37-34.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Thessaloniki, Monument of Alexander the great --Berthold Werner 11:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment The verticals should be checked and the ships on the left side I would possibly cropped out. --Ermell 13:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good now! --Aristeas 11:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The monument is still leaning to the left. --Ermell 11:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment Ooops, OK – still leaning a tiny bit. I would not consider this as a showstopper, but Ermell is right, the image could be improved further in that regard. So no need for a discussion, rather for further improvement … ;-) --Aristeas 19:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Tried to correct tilt. Adamdaley 6:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment Ringht side is ok but left side not.--Ermell 13:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support For me the pic is good aligned. With my eyes I cannot see any distortions, and using a spirit level is not necessary. --Stepro 13:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Τέλεια ... για μένα --Paris Orlando 15:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 18:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Coquerel's_sifaka_(Propithecus_coquereli).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Coquerel's sifaka (Propithecus coquereli), Peyrieras --Charlesjsharp 10:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 10:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Easy to remove color noise on white fur again. Of course the lemur with the brown fur has this noise too at same ISO. But there it is less disturbing. --Johannes Robalotoff 12:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Charlesjsharp 10:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  •  Support Good quality. --Sandro Halank 13:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Could be a bit sharper, but good enough for QI, I think. -- Ikan Kekek 09:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cropped tail --Poco a poco 10:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 18:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Lémur_catta_DSCF5485.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ring-tailed lemur (back) in parc animalier de Sainte-Croix. --Musicaline 11:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 12:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition --Charlesjsharp 13:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The animal should already be recognizable.--Fischer.H 13:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support This is QI not VI or FP. This image is of highest quality. --Stepro 00:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment The animal is recognizable by its fur and especially by its characteristic ears seen from behind. But not many pictures show the back of animals. I tried to crop the photo for a better composition, but in my opinion it is less pretty, so I did not upload. Musicaline 07:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Charles --Poco a poco 10:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 18:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

File:The_University_Of_Manchester_Whitworth_Hall.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Whitworth Hall in The University of Manchester, England --Mdbeckwith 01:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Flares --MB-one 14:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 14:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  SupportTo avoid the reflections will be very difficult in this situation. I see that as part of the composition. However, the image could do with a bit more contrast but I think it's good enough for QI.--Ermell 08:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per MB-one. Hard or not, I don't like the flares, especially the ones on the organ. -- Ikan Kekek 09:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support per Ermell. It would be really difficult to avoid the flares here, and overall this is a great image. However, a bit more contrast would be nice and the flares are really very pronounced. IMHO it should be possible to increase the overall contrast a bit, but (at the same time) to lower the local contrast and sharpness of the flares, to make them less pronounced. Not easy, I know but this image is worth the extra work. --Aristeas 10:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for sharing this image! It is not only great, but also really informative. I always dreamed about buying the TS-E17mm f/4L, it is a wonderful lens, but seeing that it creates such pronounced flares in this situation (where other good lenses would also create flares, but often less pronounced ones) is really good to know before spending more than € 2K. --Aristeas (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Flares are not an issue for me, but image have "bad HDR" look and needs more sharpening. Probably will look great with better contrast, can be improved. --Shansov.net 16:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per MB-one --Sandro Halank 13:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Some problems but ok for me --Paris Orlando (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Flares are a flaw, not a QI to me like this, sorry Poco a poco 10:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 18:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)