Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 24 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Chiesetta del Passo Sella - Skier with guardian Angel.jpg[edit]

File:Chiesetta del Passo Sella - Skier with guardian Angel.jpg

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --cart-Talk 09:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chiesetta del Passo Sella - Alpinist with guardian Angel.jpg[edit]

File:Chiesetta del Passo Sella - Alpinist with guardian Angel.jpg

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --W.carter 09:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anfiteatro_de_Pula,_Croacia,_2017-04-16,_DD_38.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pula amphitheatre, Croatia. --Poco a poco 19:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Wrong temp and minimum 1/f overexposed --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 21:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version with reduced exposure. I am still convinced that the original one was anyhow a QI, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 19:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I don´t wanna get themes with you in future, really a discuss with other peoble makes sense. In my opinion the stones on the left back side still with not enough Details. It´s not only a point of exposure (a really hard sun light) what her is often discussed at clouds (no sense), but here it´s architecture, means need dodging and more sharpness. Pic-Peoble are not imp (only good for checking c-temp. The Point of the pic is the shadow (hard cold blue) and the front focus but not the building itselves --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 21:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - OK, maybe a few stones could have more details, but overall, you really think this isn't a QI? In the current version, I think it is clearly a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 10:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan Kekek --Cvmontuy 17:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 02:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still clipping highlights in essential areas. --Smial 01:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Ermell 08:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 09:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Audi A3 SportBack 2017 Drammensfjorden (1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Audi A3 on a hill overlooking the Drammen fjord.--Peulle 23:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insuficient DOF, the logo in the front wheel is sharp but the one in the back is out of focus, sorry --Cvmontuy 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's OK, thanks for reviewing.--Peulle 11:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Limited depth of focus is OK in my view - the main subject (car) should stand out from the picture. Technically ok, although the purpose for wikipedia is unclear, given plenty of existing images of A3. --JiriMatejicek 15:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment JiriMatejicek please confirm if your are supporting or opossing for QI, regards --Cvmontuy 05:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I'm undecided on whether to support or oppose, but JiriMatejicek, if you think the photo is technically acceptable and also has an acceptable composition, you should support. The "purpose for Wikipedia" is irrelevant, as Commons is a repository of images that are free for anyone to use according to the terms of their license, and not an arm of Wikipedia. Moreover, the number of photos of a motif is also completely irrelevant to QIC. If this were being nominated in the scope A3 on VIC, whether there were better images of the car would be relevant. -- Ikan Kekek 06:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Depth of field is ok to me. --Cayambe 07:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing wrong with the DoF but the lighting is far from optimal, almost all the car is in the shadow. --Selbymay 09:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Totally fine QI-wise. The half-shadow makes the curves of the car more prominent in an interesting way, in direct light they would have been much less visible. Could be improved by cropping away some of the road at the bottom though. --cart-Talk 10:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Back of the car and rear wheel unsharp, unsatisfactory lighting and composition. --Smial 01:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 07:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 09:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)