Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 18 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Road_in_Mongolia_aimak_Bayan_Ulgiy_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The road in Mongolia aimak Bayan Ulgiy. North-Western Mongolia near the border with Russia --Alexandr frolov 00:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 01:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Sorry, I think the background is noisy and in part, very overexposed. -- Ikan Kekek 09:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose phantastic scene, but overexposed, ISO to high, not sharp - what a pity -- PtrQs 01:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO sharpness and noise are not perfect, but still acceptable. But the overexposure should be addressed. 1/2 f-stop down will do in a new development from raw file. --Smial 09:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 16:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Lochem,_de_Bierstraat_met_de_toren_van_de_Sint-Gudulakerk_RM25920_IMG_5723_2018-07-15_14.13.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lochem-NL, street view (de Bierstraat) with churchtower (de Sint-Gudulakerk) --Michielverbeek 19:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sky is a bit too noisy. Also some dust spot on the sky. --Tournasol7 20:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  CommentI support if it will be fixed, but for now oppose. --Tournasol7 19:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - If there are dust spots I'm not seeing, fix them. Otherwise, to me, this photo is perfectly OK and the noise is pretty minor. -- Ikan Kekek 20:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I added the notes. --Tournasol7 21:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment I will have a look tomorrow evening --Michielverbeek 21:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
      •  Comment - Tournasol7, unless you see something I'm not seeing, the 4 "dust spots" are birds, and I think they're perfectly OK and should remain in the picture. Removing all the flying birds from pictures when they look like birds is something I disapprove of. -- Ikan Kekek 09:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks, I think it were insects and IMO it did not add anything to the photo so I have ✓ Done removed them. --Michielverbeek 20:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Look at the building on the left side, noisy and not sharp, sorry -- DerFussi 21:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Sharpness towards the margins could be somewhat better, but I believe, the image is "good enough" for QI. --Smial 02:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 16:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Ruinas_de_la_Iglesia_de_Trzęsacz,_Voivodato_de_Pomerania_Occidental,_Polonia,_2018-11-03,_DD_19.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ruins of the church in Trzęsacz, West Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland --Poco a poco 09:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Looks overexposed; the light from the ruin is screaming at me. --Peulle 10:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. There is no single pixel overexposed here. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 13:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I see that you edited the image after disagreeing. Come on, be honest at least: either you disagree or not.--Peulle 14:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry, I edited it and didn't mention it here, as I use reviews in QI to improve my images, which does not mean that the first version isn't QI to me. I also believe that an image should not get a direct decline if it can be improved to get it promoted, so is the second version definitely a QI to you?. Instead of a direct decline, you should give the author a chance to improve it. Whatever, I've reverted the image to the initial version which is also QI to me and so didn't consider your feedback at all. I don't know why that would help here but ok. --Poco a poco 10:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The light looks really strange to me, which may be the reason I saw it as overexposed. Is the WB correct?--Peulle 11:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - In my opinion, both versions are QIs, but which light do you think is truer to life? And do address Peulle's point. -- Ikan Kekek 00:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I would like a bit more sharpness but otherwise I think it's good enough for QI. I wish to hear other voices. --Milseburg 17:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support At the end of the day the sunlight can look like this. Okay for me.--Ermell 07:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me too. Tournasol7 21:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment The first version has better composition, the intermediate version more pleasant colours, and now I don't know... --Smial 02:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 16:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)