Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 09 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Speyerer_Dom_IMG_6851.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Maximilianstraße in Speyer, Dom mit Jacobuspilger, Speyer am Rhein, Deutschland. --Fischer.H 16:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. - Statue is not in focus --TommyG 18:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support This is only possible with Focus stacking. But the idea of the picture is clearly visible here. --Ermell 19:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per TommyG. Maybe it would be impossible to have all of the statue completely in focus, but it should be better than this. Otherwise, the solution so as to avoid having a distracting blurred object in the foreground would be to walk in front of the statue and take a view of the cathedral. -- Ikan Kekek 07:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness and tilt.--Peulle 10:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see the idea of that composition, but it does not work for me. The statue is unsharp and does interact badly with the flag behind. The statue is too present to be out of focus. --Augustgeyler 13:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This might have resulted in a good picture if the shadow of the statue had been included in the picture and the figure had also been in focus. It is not really a photo of the church. --Smial 22:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Baumwollfeld_bei_Lagyna.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cotton field (Gossypium) near Lagyna / Thrace. --Neptuul 14:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Halavar 15:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good for me, too, but I think it needs some straightening before being promoted. --Lion-hearted85 16:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Straightening is observed, but look at the power poles, they aren't all vertical build. --Neptuul 06:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good quality, but I don't like the meta-categories you're using. Really, Category:Fields? -- Ikan Kekek 07:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 05:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Well composed, sharp, rich of detail. --Augustgeyler 13:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Vincent60030 18:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Star_Laguna_(ship,_2012),_Sète_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Star Laguna (ship, 2012) --Christian Ferrer 10:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I think this compisition is not QI, due to the interacting of the ship with its direct fore- and background. --Augustgeyler 20:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support In this case I think the port structures are not too interfering, and therefore part of the setting since the ship is in port. Sending to CR for resolution.--Peulle 11:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek 07:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 08:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Forte_da_Lagarteira_06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Forte da Lagarteira in Vila Praia de Ancora, Viana do Castelo district, Portugal. --Tournasol7 15:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Was the fire extinguisher (?) in the middle put there for a reason? Seems quite distracting to me. A tighter crop on the left would also benefit the photo. --Zinnmann 09:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, by I don't know why the fire extinguisher is in this place... I don't would like to crop this photo, sorry. --Tournasol7 14:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't bother about that thing, good quality anyway. --Palauenc05 16:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and good composition for me. -- Lion-hearted85 10:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 11:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Rustensteg_Wien_2020-04-04_c.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pedestrian bridge Rustensteg in Vienna. --Tsui 21:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Halavar 22:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky is overexposed. Is the picture really related to Covid-19 in any way? --A.Savin 03:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  CommentConcerning COVID: Yes. It was taken during the first weeks of the lockdown in Vienna. The streets were mostly empty, people stayed at home. This little bridge developed into a popular place where people were taking a walk and spent some time outside, keeping distance an taking off the masks for a while. Admittedly, that's hard to tell from the picture alone. It's just some people on a bridge.
    Btw, the sky is white/light grey because of the clouds covering it. --Tsui 09:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not miss detail in the sky due to the well exposed main object. The well done composition is showing the empty bridge in context to lockdown while COVID pandemic.--Augustgeyler 09:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support The sky is bright, but there is no colour channel clipping and still some detail visible without disturbimg posterisation. Good use of DOF. --Smial 09:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see clipping, neither loss of details, though the white color of the sky is at first view indeed a bit surprizing, but well, white-like skys happen sometimes, I think... Christian Ferrer 20:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. I think some QIC judges forget that there are days when the sky looks like this. You don't need a camera to see this kind of sky, only your eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 07:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 08:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Guard_at_the_Prague_castle,_Prague_-_7627.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Prague Castle Guard. By User:Jorgeroyan --Andrew J.Kurbiko 16:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Is this file a crop of the file you've nominated at the same time as this one? --Bobulous 18:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • A very nice image with a generally clean background, but the small part of the Sentry box visible on the right hand side bugs me. Maybe it's possible to edit it out? TommyG 19:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Two photos are different, and i see no problem with the part of the box. It is not distracting, but serves as a natural frame. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 22:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sorry, but I find the little archy thing on the right an oddball. Please discuss. --Vincent60030 15:47, 4 October 2020
  • Cropping it will also remove the coat of arms --undefined 07:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)(UTC)
  • @All reviewers: I was unable to determine who voted for what based purely on wording, please enter your votes with support/oppose codes if you want them registered.--Peulle 07:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good portrait to me. -- Ikan Kekek 11:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --Aristeas 09:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 12:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

File:2015-09-02._Эвакуация_детей_из_Донецка_на_лечение_в_Москву_101.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Elizaveta Glinka - Russian humanitarian worker and charity activist --Butko 14:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality --ReneeWrites 19:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but this isn't a QI to me, it is not really sharp and probably there is some motion blur around the eyes --Poco a poco 18:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a poco. The composition is distracting for a portrait of an individual. --Tagooty 08:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Face and eyes are not sharp --Jakubhal 11:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support This is not a shot in a studio and not a shot of an static object, but obviously street photography. Some unimportant elements in the background are overexposed, but this is not always easy to avoid in action photography, and in this case not really disturbing. I think the picture is absolutely sharp enough under the given circumstances, especially since the picture was thankfully uploaded with the full camera resolution. --Smial 20:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm not sure about the cropped arm, but I generally agree with Smial. -- Ikan Kekek 20:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 06:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

File:BMW_i_Vision_Dynamics,_IAA_2017,_Frankfurt_(1Y7A1838).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination BMW i Vision Dynamics at IAA 2017 --MB-one 09:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --ReneeWrites 19:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose low resolution combined with very tight cropp and too dark roof. --Augustgeyler 21:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In terms of lighting and disruptive environment or terrible backgrounds, this photo is clearly one of the better images that come out of such presentations. Unfortunately, I have to agree that the resolution of a static object with less than 3 Mpixels is quite low and also the sharpness is not very good. --Smial 20:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler and Smial: Thank you for your reviews. I attempted a new development from raw to address your concerns. Please have another look. --MB-one 11:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Resolution has significantly improved. --Augustgeyler 13:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks ok to me, but can you please remove the disturbing element in the bottom left? Poco a poco 19:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe the effects of the foreground and background mean this isn't the greatest composition of all time, but I would submit that it's a really solid photo of the car. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support New version is ok. Vote changed. --Smial 12:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 12:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)