Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 10 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Bosphorus 20161105 (4).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hagia Sophia from Bosphorus --Sakhalinio 21:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 22:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality --A.Savin 05:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment My view: it's tilted and a bit noisy, also image title and categories need to be more accurate. All fixable, IMO, so I'm prepared to give the author some time to fix it before I vote. --Peulle 17:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now, pending Sakhalinio de-noising the photo, especially on the left side, and fixing the tilt. This is an atmospheric, artistic photo, but it has some technical shortcomings. -- Ikan Kekek 22:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment This photo is already overdenoised (see the sky and the coastline), which is amongst the reasons that the sharpness level is absolutely not today's QI standard. Are you guys serious that a further denoising alone would do it? Did you really look at this photo at 100%? --A.Savin 23:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Well, whatever needs to be done, the photo as is is not good enough for QI, as much as I like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek 23:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 13:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Sendero_botanico_Hoz_de_Beteta_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Botanical trail in Hoz de Beteta. Beteta, Cuenca, Spain. --ElBute 10:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality, just a mobile phone snapshot --Uoaei1 11:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just saying it's a photo taken using a (very good, indeed) mobile phone doesn't mean anything at all about its quality. I've got several QI taken with this mobile (Nexus 6P). Could you please give some objective reason to support your rejection? --ElBute 12:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree quality is surprisingly good and perfectly acceptable for QI. -- Colin 12:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Beautiful, with impressive light control and only a bit of noise in the shadows. -- Ikan Kekek 07:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Colin. W.carter 08:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks as if the camera is adding colour automatically which comes out as the watercolour effect smial described. Burned out areas do usually get banned here and are not QI standard.--Ermell 20:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, same here. --Smial 21:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others and in the center of the picture there are blown out areas--Lmbuga 15:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you all guys for the review. It's very valuable to me. --ElBute 08:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any significant blown-out areas here. Shooting in the direction of the sun is hard enough to handle that even for a photo shot in RAW on DSLR, it may be beneficial to intentionally let some small parts blow out lest the image look too HDR-like. --King of Hearts 04:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Answer: See notes of blown out areas, King of Hearts. I'm not crazy or imbecile--Lmbuga 20:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 13:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

File:2016_Malakka,_Świątynia_Cheng_Hoon_Teng_(19).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cheng Hoon Teng Temple - the oldest chinese temple in Malaysia. Malacca City, Malacca, Malaysia. --Halavar 03:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I thought about this, and ultimately, I think that it has a couple of regrettable crops and has insufficient focus for QI. It's not a 100% obvious case either way, though, so feel free to take this to CR if you'd like a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 06:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I do not agree. We should hear others opinion. --Halavar 13:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition is fine. Sharpness is good. I'd change the description to include that this is a doorway and not the whole temple, but other than that I support the image for promotion. --Peulle 08:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. Furthermore looks like a snapshot to me and light conditions are not good. Alvesgaspar 12:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ikan Kekek, sorry. --Basotxerri 09:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Here, the crop is not great but I've seen worse; in practice QIC requires horrendously bad composition to reject on those grounds. The lighting is bad but when I first started evaluating QICs, I declined a couple for having featureless white skies, and was overturned by a slew of supports at CR and learned ever since that it is not a valid reason to decline. I don't see any sharpness issues. --King of Hearts 04:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Perhaps views have changed since then? I seem to remember seeing various photos rejected for QI on the basis of being too dark, for example. However, I didn't say anything about the light, nor did I suggest declining the photo only because of the crops. I think sometimes, there can be a cumulative effect of two or more factors. -- Ikan Kekek 08:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose it´s the crop. --Hubertl 10:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 13:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)