Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 03 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Eicheln_P1270928.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Eicheln, Lieblingskost der Wildschweine, Pfälzer Wald, Deutschland. --Fischer.H 17:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose A bit too soft. --MB-one 19:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC) --Fischer.H 09:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry to grainy and partially not sharp enough --Augustgeyler 20:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question Why is a nomination with 2 opposes and no supports or comments by the nominator in CR? -- Ikan Kekek 05:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Perhaps because the nominator decided to collect more opinions and forgot to post such a comment? --Augustgeyler 07:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 09:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Regarding the sharpness (which I find sufficient) I wanted to get more opinions.--Fischer.H 09:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose OK, I think it's not quite sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 21:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 21:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

File:1_The_interiors_at_Viceregal_Lodge_(IIAS),_Shimla,_Himachal_Pradesh,_India.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The interiors at Viceregal Lodge (IIAS), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. By User:Siddharthpandey87 --Bodhisattwa 14:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 16:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Very good composition but too noisy. --Augustgeyler 20:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per August. -- Ikan Kekek 05:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In addition, it requires a perspective correction. It’s a very interesting photo, of course, so if it could be reprocessed, I would be happy to support it. --Aristeas 07:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler.--Peulle 09:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Aristeas 07:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Tour_de_Suresnes_4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tour de Suresnes (de Celette) --Sebring12Hrs 15:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment date fixed: September/Septembre --XRay 17:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Leaning on the right side --Moroder 03:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: See above review comment .. is fixable. The juxtaposition of dwarf modern towers in lower-right adds a nice touch! --Tagooty 01:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Tagooty: I agree, but I don't have a good level in the using of Shift N. In addition, I did't found the time to correct the perspective problem --Sebring12Hrs 18:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Not done, sorry --Moroder 11:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree Are the "vertical" walls really vertical in reality? All the windows and also the building's parts on top are leaning much less than the main walls. --Smial 12:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Applied shiftN with standard settings. --Smial 12:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good enough to me, and as mentioned above, a very good composition. -- Ikan Kekek 05:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 06:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support a quality frame with a tower no longer listing --Virtual-Pano 22:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Virtual-Pano 22:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Sulla_scogliera_di_Calafuria_ammirando_il_Castello_del_Boccale.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination On the cliff of Calafuria admiring the Boccale Castle --PROPOLI87 10:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 13:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I disagree. --A.Savin 18:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very big and not sharp enough, sorry. -- Ikan Kekek 06:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Slightly too high color saturation, which leads to unnecessary color noise. But a very convincing composition, nice lighting, and I also find the image resolution sufficient, even if it is rather at the lower limit for a landscape shot. --Smial 09:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Edited to medium sharpness. The colors are the real ones, and they are so strong because the rocks were wet from the storm, even the previous night in the area there was a tornado that did damage in the neighboring countries. --PROPOLI87 09:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak support A very nice composition which overweights the technical flows, Why use f/4 for a still image? --Moroder 10:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I took a lot of photos, some in automatic mode and others in motion mode, photographing the breaking of the sea waves on the cliff. And I don't know this one that I took from the many which series it belongs to. --PROPOLI87 12:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 Comment Moroder: This is a camera with a small sensor, f/4 ist suitable. --Smial 10:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 CommentYes, in fact I also checked the other photos of the series and they are all in f / 4, some even in f / 5. Thank you. I'm trying to make the most of the limited potential of the cameraPROPOLI87 12:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 12:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 Comment I personally think it is a great pity that due to sometimes exaggerated technical demands, many outstandingly designed photos fail QIC because the camera is a bit older or not a model for many thousand $$$. But one will not be able to change that. QIC is often no longer about quality and clean craftsmanship with what you have at hand, but only about many megapixels. Don't be discouraged, maybe it will work the next time. --Smial 22:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  weak contra Yes, it is a lovely composition, but it is not sharp enough. And I am with Smial, the saturation is high while resolution is low. --Augustgeyler 10:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with oppose votes. Low resolution, not sharp enough. These flaws can't be fixed so I think we should vote to decline this BTW very nice picture --Halavar 11:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I uploaded a new improved version (at least it seems to me) --PROPOLI87 13:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    Even worse version than previously; just look at the sky. --A.Savin 17:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)* CommentI restored the previous file. Thank you.PROPOLI87 12:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 12:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Changed vote per A.Savin. Now massive overprocessing, lots of artifacts. --Smial 10:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Smial: You changed your vote? Can't see that. Until now I see you only commenting here... --Augustgeyler (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very high resolution and not high enough quality.--Peulle 09:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Palauenc05 06:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Faro_di_San_Maurizio.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Faro Voltiano lighthouse, in Como, Italy. Uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2020. By User:Maurizio Moro5153 --Crep171166 10:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Very good composition. Do you have a version with higher detail and bit more light? --Augustgeyler 16:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I promoted it because of its wonderful composition and perspective. But I would like to collect some more reviews due to the level of detail which remained low. --Augustgeyler 18:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too little detail, not a QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The new version is massively overprocessed. It has neither higher resolution nor more detail than the first version, but extremely amplified sharpening artifacts. Also oversaturated. --Smial 15:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ikan --Jakubhal 15:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 09:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Lengurbill_beach_20.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lengurbill beach, Teknaf, Cox's Bazar. --RockyMasum 18:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Strange looking artifacts especially around the masts but also some other boat elements. Pity, because the picture is interesting. Please fix if possible --Jakubhal 19:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I have tried to fix the artefacts; please have another look at the image. Hope it helps, --Aristeas 10:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Jakubhal 13:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition is about that moved boat. Therefore the camera isn't close enough. Additionally there is a lack of detail. --Augustgeyler 22:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support I think there's enough detail on the nearest boat for QI; the other boats can be blurrier if the photographer wants to do that. -- Ikan Kekek 05:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good for me -- Spurzem 10:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 08:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Fischer.H 17:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 06:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your votes! I am neutral here because I have helped with editing the photo; but I am glad that it is (now) good for you. --Aristeas 07:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 06:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)