Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 23 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Zeil-Gallery-MyZeil-staircase- with-escalators-in-Frankfurt-am-Main-P1330164N.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Staircase of the shopping mall MyZeil in Frankfurt/Main --Ermell 08:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Easily visible HDR artefacts; best seen with the people on the escalator. --Gorlingor 22:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Gorlingor.--Peulle 07:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review--Ermell 10:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment What the actual f...? :O I have no idea how you fixed that; I thought this image was doomed. But now it's actually a very good image. :) Fix the title too and I'll change my  Neutral to a support. :D--Peulle 13:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    ✓ Done  Support. :) Possible FP candidate with a few more touches? --Peulle 22:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    You can read en:High-dynamic-range imaging. HDR images are often made by combining three captures with different exposure (low, mid, high) into one image. Ermell probably now decided to use only one of the captures. That’s why the colors look so different now if you compare it to the previous (HDR) version. --Gorlingor 23:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I processed the image again and masked the moving parts (people and escalators) out. I choose another preset which I found more suitable.--Ermell 22:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 13:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Zeil-Gallery-MyZeil-staircase- with-escalators-in-Frankfurt-am-Main-P1330167N.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Straicase of the shopping mall MyZeil in Frankfurt Main --Ermell 08:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No meaningful title. An image called "Zeil-Frankfurt-Main-123" can show anything. --Gorlingor 23:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    I am not sure why you started the new title with "Zeil Gallery". There is was another mall on the Zeil that was called "Zeilgalerie", but it's a different mall. By the way, you can also use spaces in file names. --Gorlingor (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
     Comment I think the description and the categorisation show clear enough which "Zeilgalerie" is meant. Thanks for your review.--Ermell 20:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    But there only ever was one "Zeilgalerie", and it was closed one year ago… --Gorlingor (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, please consider changing the title; it's a simple fix. Another thing, though, is all that noise ... Compression issues? --Peulle 07:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for reviewing--Ermell 07:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support My compliments on a very good piece of work.--Peulle 13:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very good and a bit hypnotic to me. -- Ikan Kekek 02:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 03:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Royal_stables,_Meknes.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Royal stables, Meknes, Morocco. By User:Bgag --Reda benkhadra 22:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Columns overexposed, IMO not fixable, not a QI. --Basotxerri 09:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Doesn't look too bad to me, and nice composition. Much worse pics have passed QIC. I think this is worth a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 20:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I understand you and the image is a very nice composition but the highlights are very, very burnt. --Basotxerri 19:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's a close call for me: I could accept the bright highlights as an unavoidable product of the sunlight, but only if the rest of the image was very good. Sadly, however, I'm not seeing the kind of detail I'd expect in the rest of the image. The composition is nice, though--Peulle 22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 03:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Monasterio_Khor_Virap,_Armenia,_2016-10-01,_DD_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Image in the Khor Virap Monastery, Armenia --Poco a poco 18:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Nice try, but too noisy --Daniel Case 06:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It's pretty good except that I don't understand the colors of the nearest cloth, and it's a very large file. I think I'll be  Neutral, but I do think this deserves a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 06:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree, lately many users are pushing hard to demotivate the upload of big files. I've uploaded a ✓ new version. --Poco a poco 11:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The cloths still look a little washed out, but maybe they were. Anyway, I feel like this is good enough for QI.  Support. -- Ikan Kekek 15:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support; it's losing sharpness in the bottom corners but otherwise good.--Peulle 12:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI.--Ermell 07:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Monasterio_de_Hnevank,_Armenia,_2016-09-30,_DD_87.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hnevank Monastery, Armenia --Poco a poco 18:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Weird CA on some corners; edges look a little overprocessed --Daniel Case 06:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Tough review. I cannot understand a direct decline due to CA in such a big file. I've uploaded a new version, should be ok now IMHO. --Poco a poco 11:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: It's still there, and I realize I shouldn't have called it CA. What, exactly, is the purple/red edge on the rock in that narrow gap? It looks like the sky was processed separately from the ground and the edges didn't quite match up. Daniel Case 04:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Looks quite good to me. -- Ikan Kekek 15:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The current version certainly looks good enough for QI.--Peulle 12:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me--Ermell 07:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 03:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Lucerne_Pilatus_Lake_panoramic_1180662.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Lake Lucerne and the Pilatus with Lucerne --Ermell 07:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not yet. Some dust spot have to been removed, most obvious in the sky right of Pilatus summit. --Milseburg 22:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I hope I hit them all. Thanks for your review.--Ermell 20:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I see a number of very small dark spots, but those might be birds or in some cases, even faraway helicopters. And the photo is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek 03:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 03:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Langoor_In_Rishikesh.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Langoor In Rishikesh --Satdeep Gill 17:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Can we get the animal species in the categories?--Peulle 21:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I'd like to have seen its face, but the image quality seems OK.--Peulle 17:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Surely not QI with the face hidden? Charlesjsharp 13:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think it can be. It's not a species-identification photo as much as a "we're looking in the same direction as the monkey" photo. -- Ikan Kekek 14:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Charlesjsharp: You do have a point, but then on the other hand there are QI images that don't have traditional compositions, and Commons can always use photos from different angles. We need photos showing the rear of animals too. :) --Peulle 19:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall not sharp enough.--Ermell 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The langur nicely sits in focus. Rear photographs of animals are obviously valuable as well. – Gorlingor 18:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support image quality seems OK --Sandro Halank 10:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 13:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)