Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 28 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Suigun-Line-E131.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kiha E130 - 0 series running on the Suigun Line. --MaedaAkihiko 07:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient level of detail and sharpness. --Augustgeyler 09:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp and detailed enough, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 10:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough, in my opinion. --Hillopo2018 10:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice and "Kabelleger"ish and if there was more crispness, I even might have said go for an FPC; but sufficient for QI anyhow. --A.Savin 12:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 16:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 18:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Saint_Theresa_of_the_Infant_Jesus_Church_(Covington,_Ohio)_-_nave,_rear.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A church nave in Ohio --Nheyob 13:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I feel that the depth of field is too low, making almost the entire church unsharp. -- Ikan Kekek 06:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan. --Ermell 21:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 00:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Hopital_Laquintini-5095.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Twins under incubator at Laquintini Hospital in Cameroon (by Max MBAKOP) --Adoscam 12:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not spicy enough, neither the babies nor the incubator. --Steindy 14:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Worth a discussion. I think enough of the baby on the right is sharp, and the baby on the left is reasonably sharp. Interestingly, the sharpness in this case is better at full size on my 23.5-inch monitor than on my 13-inch. By the way, please be careful to use the correct translation of scharf from German. Calling babies not spicy enough suggests cannibalism! -- Ikan Kekek 06:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Funny thing with "sharp" and "spicy" both translating into German "scharf". I think we should promote the image. At least the right baby, which attracts most attention, is sharp enough. --Augustgeyler (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell 22:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 00:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Mestecko_Trnavka.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Městečko Trnávka station, Czech Republic --Cmelak770 07:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry! For me not sharp enough. --Steindy 20:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support ok IMO --Ermell 17:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ermell. -- Ikan Kekek 06:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 10:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Glenfinnan_Viaduct_1_20211024.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Glenfinnan Viadcut, Scotland --Domob 10:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Good composition. But the image is not sharp enough as well as level of detail is too low. --Augustgeyler 23:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. The viaduct is sharp at 100%, the mountains in the background are sharp at 100%, and you can see individual grasses and leafs. Seems sharp enough to me, please discuss. --Domob 12:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is no problem, as Domob says. It's possible the photo is a bit dark, but I suppose it's realistic. -- Ikan Kekek 06:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment In addition it lacks detail. --Augustgeyler 14:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Under-exposed and the slow shutter speed is blurring detail. --GRDN711 16:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I agree about the underexposure and have redeveloped the picture a bit brighter now. --Domob 18:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment It improved the lights but I think the image is still to soft. --Augustgeyler 18:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 00:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Jacobite_on_Glenfinnan_Viaduct_3_20211024.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination "The Jacobite" crossing Glenfinnan Viaduct, Scotland --Domob 10:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 11:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose An amazing composition. But sharpnes and level of detail are too low. --Augustgeyler 23:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't agree that this landscape has to be more detailed. -- Ikan Kekek 06:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do. In 2021, a landscape with this resolution shouldn't be this soft. It looks like it's been smoothed out all over, so there's definitely some sharpness missing imo.--Peulle 08:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it's OK to concentrate on the viaduct and choose to let the rest of the landscape be smoothed out, as you say. Many paintings do that, and not all photographs have to emphasize every detail to be good photographs. -- Ikan Kekek 10:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. Printable to A4 or even larger in good quality. --Smial 10:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 18:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Like this image but agree with Augustgeyler and Peulle that the lack of detail is troubling. --GRDN711 16:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support QI, by all means. --Palauenc05 17:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 00:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

File:004_2021_11_14_Draufsichten_auf_Fahrzeuge.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Märklin locomotive model of the steam freight locomotive with a tub-style tender class 50 of the German Federal Railway from above
    --F. Riedelio 09:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Extreme crop -- Alvesgaspar 20:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 07:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Both versions seem OK to me, but how did you do it, and is the white background in the photo or just something my browser is doing? -- Ikan Kekek 06:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version The image shows a toy locomotive shot in a lightbox from above standing on a white sheet of paper. For improvement I colored the background green. --F. Riedelio 07:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question So you did not crop the rails out of its background in post processing? All we see around the model is the light box?
  •  Oppose The white backround wasn't a very good choice, I'd preferred black in this case. But that green is a no go. Also, the subject would have been a very good candidate for a focus stack, I find the depth of field insufficient. --Smial 11:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 14:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The required 2 megapixels not reached. --Fischer.H 15:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Fischer.H: The file size should not be confused with the image size. --F. Riedelio 14:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 Comment The Image has about 8.6 MPixels --Smial 17:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Urquhart_Castle_1_20211024.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ruins of Urquhart Castle at the shore of Loch Ness, Scotland --Domob 16:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, this is too soft. Additionally level of details is so low, that the structure of leaves and grass is lost. --Augustgeyler 14:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think sharpnes and detail are sufficient, please discuss. --Domob 16:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness sufficiant to be printed to A4 or larger. Thankfully not oversharpened. Probably slightly oversaturated, but the lighting may also have contributed to such intense colors. --Smial 11:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 17:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 18:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Schlossstrasse_6_in_Neuenstein_(2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schloßstraße 6 in Neuenstein, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. --Tournasol7 05:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 06:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor framing -- Alvesgaspar 22:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question Alvesgaspar, is your complaint about the part of a car, or is it something else? -- Ikan Kekek 05:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I refer to both, the cropped car and the excessive foreground. -- Alvesgaspar 08:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is a lot of road, a cut should be done. In addition, as mentionned by Ikan, the car should be cropped. --Sebring12Hrs 05:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the road is OK. It's a leading line, right? -- Ikan Kekek 13:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question Also, if the car is cropped out, won't people complain that the crop on the right is too close to the building? -- Ikan Kekek 14:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Precisely, that's why cloning out the car would be the best solution, if the author is patient enough to do it. Alvesgaspar 14:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
You are both right. IMO there is a little bit too much road, but is just my personnal point of view. --Sebring12Hrs 19:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavorable cropping (too much foreground). --F. Riedelio 09:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded; the car is cloned out. Tournasol7 17:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, and that does look better. -- Ikan Kekek 02:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now. --F. Riedelio 14:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose poor framing. --Kallerna 16:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Alvesgaspar, F. Riedelio, Kallerna; ✓ Cropped, it's better? Tournasol7 05:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Better version, good enough for QI now. --Sebring12Hrs 07:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The newest version is good quality. --Augustgeyler 09:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Tagooty 09:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 10:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Almourol_November_2021-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Castle of Almourol viewed from North, Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar 13:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Blurred foreground, vertical perspective distortion. --F. Riedelio 08:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Both result from a deliberate choice -- Alvesgaspar 11:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Info Bringing to CR before it falls, although no explicit oppose vote was made - Alvesgaspar 00:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and a good photo, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 07:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose To show a monument like this form the north makes finding the best light difficult. But a cloudy day or another time of day with higher sun might have helped. But the conditions we find here are making it even impossible to see the structure of important parts of that building, due to very dark shadows. The other way might have been to show this object just as a black silhouette in front of a bright environment, which did not happen here as well. That is why I think, this is not QI. --Augustgeyler 01:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Dark parts are dark, but still show enough detail. Sharpness acceptable, colours appear natural. --Smial 11:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Given this is in short telephoto range, vertical perspective correction won't end up in noteworthy distortion. Also, IMHO, a bit blueish/greenish (although colors still look possible). --C messier 17:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Perspective distortions, mostly dark parts against a bright sky, and the placement of the object within the frame, all these in combination do not make happy, although one might argue about the individual importance of each. What I mean with placement within the frame: It creates a strange contradictory feeling looking at a subject which is supposed to be far above the viewer, but at the same time appearing in the middle and in the lower part of the image. Of course this is not "wrong" and the lens is best in its center, but psychologically it makes an awkward composition. A simple crop of sky could fix this, and darkness could be brightened up by editing. May be one could leave the geometry then as it is, as it emphasizes the feeling of looking up to the subject from below a hill. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Very sharp, good colors even in the shadow. It's difficult to have a very good perspective here. It's an old castle, the walls are certainly not very straight ! --Sebring12Hrs 19:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Palauenc05 21:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support You would have opposed this image if I had been the author arguing that the lighting is bad or something else (how can you then nominate this image?), which I'd expect in FP but not there, but quality is overall fine to me here. Poco a poco 20:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No Poco, I would not for sure! :)) -- Alvesgaspar 21:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others --Commonists 18:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for QI. --Tagooty 09:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, especially Johannes Robalotoff --Sandro Halank 22:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe that this last vote is invalid because it came more than 48 hours after the last one. Also, exhibiting the final result after voting doesn't seem correct -- Alvesgaspar 22:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • A vote is valid unless nobody took action and marked the a result in the necessary way. But now we do have a non-conclusion result after 8 days. That is why we can close this.--Augustgeyler 00:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 00:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)