Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 18 2021

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Ferme_du_Mont_des_Récollets_(Wouwenberghof)_(8).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Garden in mount des Récollets, Cassel Nord .- France.--Pierre André Leclercq 14:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose The greens on the hedge are burned imo, sorry. --Nefronus 15:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    I desagree --Commonists 16:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Parts of the photo look blown to me and are too glary. -- Ikan Kekek 06:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appears overexposed and oversaturated. --Smial 14:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:2015-09-18_MS_OCEAN_ENDEAVOUR_-_IMO_7625811,_at_Qeqertarsuaq_Island_(Karrat_Fjord),_Greenland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Expedition ship, MS Ocean Endeavour, at Qeqertarsuaq Island (Karrat Fjord), Greenland --GRDN711 00:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Too noisy imo, sorry. Why so short exposure at 70mm? --Nefronus 11:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comment. Have tuned image slightly to minimize noise. This is not a dead church picture with empty pews and no people. At the time, everything was changing rapidly, especially the light breaking through the mist. I disagree with your QI assessment. Let’s see what others think. --GRDN711 13:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Drosera_rotundifolia_TK_2021-06-12_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Drosera rotundifolia, Brdy PLA, Czechia --Nefronus 14:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 16:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Many parts out of fosus --Commonists 16:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, it’s because the traps are miniature and it’s not a focus stack. There were favourable lighting conditions, so I could use f/16, which is as much as you can get before significant diffraction occurs. You don’t have to troll and selectively oppose my every vote/image for simply disagreeing with your opinions. --Nefronus 17:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, but please eliminate the COM:OVERCAT. -- Ikan Kekek 06:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you, I deleted the surplus category. Nefronus 06:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Butterflies_of_Tambov_-_001.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cyaniris bellis, the Greek mazarine blue. --Alexander Novikov 09:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry, too soft imo. There is e.g. no detail in the eye. --Nefronus 13:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Fpr these kind of pics is accettable --Commonists 16:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not enough of the butterfly is sharp, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 06:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:MunicipalBuilding19AT.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination . By User:Grenoble17 --Filetime 04:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Soft & CAs to be removed. --Nefronus 18:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Good for me! --Commonists 16:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    Also note the reflections and the background noise. --Nefronus 17:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Nefronus. Not close to a QI, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 06:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Parque_Nacional_dos_Lençois_Maranhenses_Matheus_Hobold_Sovernigo_(03).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Parque Nacional dos Lençóis Maranhenses de nível Federal By User:Sovernigo --Rodrigo.Argenton 17:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Big overexposed patch on the right, sorry. --Nefronus 06:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me --Commonists 16:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Nefronus + strange rainbow coastline of the overexposed section. Commonists, are you opposing Nefronus in good faith? Your choices of nominations to disagree with Nefronus on above seem random and not well thought out. -- Ikan Kekek 06:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I certainly didn't do it at random ikan, I think they are good for me, others have voted like me, but if some others don't like them, ok I accept it.--Commonists 22:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 06:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Town_hall_in_Lodeve_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Town hall in Lodeve, Hérault, France. --Tournasol7 05:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Slightly tilted cw.--Peulle 06:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but all line are vertical in my eyes... --Tournasol7 11:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah they look OK now to me too, maybe a mistake. I'm not sure about that sky, though, I'd like to get some more opinions on that.--Peulle 14:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image. Unusually intense, uniform blue sky, but not unnaturally so. --Tagooty 15:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Good saturation and color. --Knopik-som 01:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Well done. --Aristeas 15:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 06:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Bust_of_Menotti_Garibaldi.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bust of Menotti Garibaldi in the Gianicolo park in Rome, Lazio, Italy. (by Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 12:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Noisy background, blurred edges (jpg-artifacts). --F. Riedelio 09:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per F. Riedelio. --Nefronus 19:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I disagree. I don't found it noisy and I worked with RAW file so no JPG artefacts. --Tournasol7 07:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is a jpg-file!
    Artifacts please see notifications. --F. Riedelio 07:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • This is the residue after chromatic aberration removal. It's not JPG artefact. IMO it is so small that it is hardly noticeable. --Tournasol7 11:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Don’t see any problem --Moroder 07:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support No significant problem. Nice, soft lighting. --Smial 09:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support No serious problems, only very small traces of the CA removal. Yes, we all should better use only apochromatic lenses, but really apochromatic lenses are rare and expensive ;–). --Aristeas 15:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 16:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Balcony_in_Pompeii.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Balcony in Pompeii --Commonists 19:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 05:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Upscaled image? Also, as always, problems with CA and categories. I doubt it's a balcony. At Pompeii's time, there were no balconies. --A.Savin 01:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment "Un mirador es un elemento arquitectónico en forma de galería exterior o balcón cerrado en toda su altura que sobresale del muro." Verschiedene Sprachen, verschiedene Bezeichnungen und Umschreibungen. --Smial 10:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • They are more photos,CA removed,categories what would be the problem? You have been answered for the balcony, thank you.--Commonists 17:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't feel to "have been answered" sufficiently wrt the "balcony", I don't understand what should "They are more photos" mean, and Category:Pompeii (as well as Category:Balconies) is actually a generic diffusion-requiring category. --A.Savin 22:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support In a forum on ancient, medieval and modern architecture, one could certainly argue about the exact architectural definition. For me, the picture is clearly a QI, especially as the favourable lighting makes for a very detailed representation. --Smial 21:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Cathedral_of_Our_Lady_of_Rodez_14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stained-glass window in the Cathedral of Rodez, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 06:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry: blurred, blown-out highlights. --F. Riedelio 10:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry : Not blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 16:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC) PS : I think this image is the perfection of what we can do with a Nikon D3300 when we shoot a stained-glass window
  •  Oppose I agree, not sharp enough. I think this is the minimum sharpness we should aim for. Rodhullandemu 16:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Your example has CAs, not the image here. --Sebring12Hrs 22:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the tip, but I was comparing apples with apples, not oranges. Rodhullandemu 09:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am very sorry because this is a nice composition etc., but there is really something wrong with the level of details in the stained glass. E.g. in the central image (Madonna and child) the faces are almost lost. I cannot decide whether this is because of blur or because of problems with the exposure (the extreme contrast of stained-glass windows is always very difficult). Sorry again, --Aristeas 07:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Piazza_di_Spagna_in_Rome_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Piazza di Spagna in Rome, Lazio, Italy. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 12:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Slightly tilted to the left. --Remontees 21:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, discuss please. --Tournasol7 09:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Verticals are ok --Moroder 20:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The verticals are OK, there is some optical illusion with the buildings in the background which gives at the first glance the impression that there was a problem with the verticals. --Aristeas 07:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 02:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Appenzell_St_Mauritius_tower_20210528.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tower of the Pfarrkirche St. Mauritius in Appenzell --Domob 12:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose unbalanced photo composition --Remontees 21:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
     Comment Obviously not a perspective for FPC, but IMHO fine for QI. Please discuss. --Domob 07:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction is needed. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Since it is taken far below, the perspective correction is good enough imo --Moroder 09:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK. --XRay 07:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Moroder --Tagooty 15:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's quite amazing the imaging possibilities offered by wide-angle lenses and image processing these days. And how crappy it can look. The tower doesn't seem to have a roof. This is not an appropriate way to document such architecture. --Smial 10:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I know how difficult it is to photograph large buildings in small spaces but this is surely too close to get a reasonably good image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Rodhullandemu. Nefronus 18:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Fort_Lovrijenac_In_Dubrovnik.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fort Lovrijenac in Dubrovnik --Sumitsurai 01:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Comment Building tilted to right. Underexposed. --Tagooty 02:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There were two votes by Tagooty on this image, which is not allowed. I assume that this (first) entry was originally only a comment, therefore I have made it a mere comment again in order to fix the double-vote problem. --Aristeas 07:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed. --Remontees 22:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Exposition well balanced --Moroder 09:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Comments not addressed. --Tagooty 16:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Moroder. Very nice lighting, and colours. Also, the building is not really shown crooked. One could ask for a minimal perspective correction, but the image-defining left edge of the building is actually built at an angle. Only the top end is actually vertical, and there the deviation from a "perfect" vertical is so tiny that I didn't want to correct it. Also on the right side of the picture, the masonry has been partly built at an angle. --Smial 12:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 15:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial. --Aristeas 07:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial. I looked at my images of Lovrijenac Fortress taken at the same level as the fort. The walls were built at an angle, presumably for structural reasons. The walls of Old Town Dubrovnik across from the fort are similar. --GRDN711 13:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)