Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 14 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Skulptur_Searching_for_Utopia_von_Jan_Fabre_in_Nieuwpoort_(Belgien)_2020-09_(Detailansicht).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture Searching for Utopia in Nieuwpoort (Belgium) --Gordito1869 08:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, a large part of the head is overexposed --Trougnouf 11:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yeah, looks blown. -- Ikan Kekek 08:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Yes it is blown. But as this golden surface is reflecting light so strong, I think this is OK for QI. --Augustgeyler 09:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's blown very prominently. Also, there is a another picture from this sculpture nominated, which is better :) --Tesla 15:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Info : I uploaded this new one - without any "blowing" : File:Skulptur "Searching for Utopia", Jan Fabre, Nieuwpoort (Belgium) new uploaded.jpg --Gordito1869 07:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Cattle_near_Anna-Schutzhaus.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cattle on the alp near Anna-Schutzhaus hut. --Tesla 06:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Very good composition. --Augustgeyler 07:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Good composition but some quality issues: blue-green CA along the edge of the trees in the first mountain on the left; DoF is poor -- grass and nearby trees are fuzzy; some blue spots and streaks in the sky and against the distant mountains (birds or dust spots?) --Tagooty 10:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    •  Info Thank you for the feedback, i'll fix theese issues soon. --Tesla 11:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
      ✓ Done retouched spots, removed CAs. --Tesla 17:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Though I like the composition, the lack of DoF and blur on the cattle make it not a QI for me. With good light, an aperture of f/8 or smaller is suggested. --Tagooty 05:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 08:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

File:GRANDE_GHANA_(ship,_2009).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination GRANDE GHANA (ship, 2009) --Christian Ferrer 11:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 11:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A good attempt with a difficult situation but the cluttered foreground is not QI for me. --GRDN711 04:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Authentic presentation of a ship in port. --Milseburg 15:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Yes, a picture with a ship at port has to show the port around. But in this case it was not resulting in a good composition. The left crane on the left right for example is hidden by the ship. The foreground itself is cut out at the bottom so that the fence lost its fundament. I think that picture shows the ship very well but did not succeed to compose it with the port around well enough. --Augustgeyler (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC) – correction: --Augustgeyler 13:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak support somewhat cluttered as mentioned by GRDN711 - the 2 'Liebherr' cranes mentioned by Augustgeyler are structural parts of the Grande Ghana hence are jsut fine (for me) --Virtual-Pano 20:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per GRDN711. --Kallerna 20:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Milseburg.--Ermell 21:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)