Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 31 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Kristapori_church.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kristapori church (7th-century, restored) near Dashtadem Village, Aragatsotn Province, Armenia. --Armenak Margarian 19:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syed07 05:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Tilted. --Basotxerri 08:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Lighting on the church could be better, but good enough quality. -- Ikan Kekek 10:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 18:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Dendermonde_town_hall_and_belfry_during_civil_twilight_(DSCF0517).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dendermonde town hall and belfry during civil twilight --Trougnouf 05:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 06:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I prefer other photo. Tournasol7 07:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  CommentThere's nothing wrong with submitting nearly identical pictures to QIC and nothing forces the same reviewers to go through all of them. In this case I think I have two clearly distinct QI's, both taken in great conditions (on a tripod with good alignment and waiting for no one to pass by on the city's busiest place which crazily even allows car traffic), one taken during the golden hour and the other 20-minutes later during civil twilight has the golden-pink glow replaced with the tower's artificial lighting. I have been thoroughly documenting the Category:Twilights of Belgium and Category:Golden hour in Belgium on all of my pictures and that distinction alone is worthy of a different shot as the aforementioned twilight categories are the only proper ones of their kind --Trougnouf 18:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes! Thank you and sorry for not making this easier. --Trougnouf 08:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --Basotxerri 08:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case 00:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 18:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Privatrösterei_Schröer_--_2018_--_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Coffee roasting (collage) at Schröers Privatrösterei, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  OpposeThe left picture with the coffee beans is unfortunately blurred.--Ermell 07:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I'll fix it as soon as possible. --XRay 04:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done @Ermell: Thank you for your patience. I replaced the image bottom left. It was the wrong image and it's better now. --XRay 08:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Smial 08:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 11:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 18:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Avenida_Paulista_no_pôr_do_sol.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Avenida Paulista no pôr do sol visto do Sesc Avenida Paulista --Rodrigo.Argenton 22:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  CommentFor me too noisy for Q1 and please add geo location. I did not know in which city this photo was made until I found the pages on which this photo has been published. An English description would also be great; not everybody understand Portuguese --Michielverbeek 07:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Michielverbeek not everybody understand English - is not mandatory. And you do not need to enter at the article, you can enter at the file's categories. Both have Wikidata infoboxes... the noisy amount is very reasonable for a night photo. --Rodrigo.Argenton 20:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO too unsharp for a QI. I agree with Rodrigo's comment about the noise. --Basotxerri 08:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful colors but that's not enough for QI. Daniel Case 00:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted and unsharp.--Peulle 10:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Ermell 07:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Parochiekerk_Sint-Amandus_in_Leupegem_(DSCF9201).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Parochiekerk Sint-Amandus in Leupegem (Oudenaarde) during nautical twilight --Trougnouf 05:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportBeautiful light.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is it? I know it's night light and all, but the white balance looks off to me. This doesn't look like a good shot of a lit white building.--Peulle 07:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Artificial light can have all possible colour tones--Ermell (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support As the stars a white, I think the white balance is correct --Llez 20:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 18:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Stone_Chariot_View,_Hampi.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Stone Chariot, Hampi. By User:Prashmob --Sumitsurai 21:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Beautiful, but we can see the jpg artefacls, Tournasol7 06:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Lack of detail, posterisation, overprocessed. --Basotxerri 19:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Far from QI, too many artefacts. --Milseburg 13:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality too low.--Ermell 07:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. Halo all around the monument -- Basile Morin 14:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Basile. You can see this quite easily at thumb. Daniel Case 00:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)