Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 03 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Viaduc_du_Viaur,_entre_Tarn_et_Aveyron_06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Viaur viaduc in the fog--Celeda 08:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC) * Ermell, I'm very surprised by your opinion. It's possible to make a good printout of this photo; at least until 60 cm / 40 cm. I'm sure of that because Wikimedia offered me a poster of this size, as prize for the 10th place on Wikimedia loves monuments in France 2019.
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Colour banding and artifacts. Sorry. --Ermell 14:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I give you, Ermell the sentence of the jury of Wikimedia France. I don't translate so as not a risk betraying the meaning. " Il s'agit sans doute d'une des photos les plus lyriques de notre selection, en competition avec d'autres visions brumeuses et d'ouvrages d'art. La composition magnifie le viaduc de 1902, met en scène sa grandeur et laisse imaginer sa traversée." NOTE : Maybe we have a problem understanding. In French, "artefact" has several meanings. About the photo, it means :"unwanted artificial element". For me (and the jury) here there no "artifact", no "unwanted element". --Celeda 07:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Congratulations on the award! The motif is also excellent and I don't want to diminish the fame in any way, but here at QI only the technical things are evaluated.--Ermell 10:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell.--Peulle 09:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

File:20180720_Aglais_io.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Picture of an European Peacock (Aglais io) on the ground in Niedaltdorf, Germany. The picture was shot using a AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G lens. --DavidJRasp 21:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Mdaniels5757 01:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very small and blurred --Charlesjsharp 18:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support -- Spurzem 06:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek 08:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles.--Peulle 09:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Péniche_Duchesse_Anne_-_Rouvray.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Duchesse-Anne ship, écluse du Rouvray, Brittany, France --Tsaag Valren 08:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support GQ --Palauenc05 11:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • GQ? Do you mean "Good Quality"? --XRay 07:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Front part of the boat is too blurry. Sorry. --Ermell 14:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell. Extra: significant CAs on poles of the enclosure (at the head of the ship), noise/artifacts on the left side of the ship. The white supestructure is rather significantly overexposed and there are CAs along it, too. Sorry, not QI. Dmitry Ivanov 15:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC).
  •  Support I can't see really disrturbing blur. All other critics above are true, pixelpeeping. --Smial 18:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Definitely per Ermell Poco a poco 19:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Gulfstream_G650ER,_EBACE_2018,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(BL7C0731).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gulfstream G650ER, EBACE 2018 --MB-one 16:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose More distance would have been necessary and if this was not possible then it is just an impossible QI-composition --Michielverbeek 20:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree; the composition is fine IMHO. --Mdaniels5757 01:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop should be better. Please have a look to the right. --XRay 06:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Smial 19:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No QI, tight crop on left and unfortunate on right Poco a poco 19:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Sowjetisches_Ehrenmal_mit_Gräbern_–_Ostfriedhof_Leipzig.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Graves of soviet soldiers fallen at WW2 while conquering the city of Leipzig. --Augustgeyler 18:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline An excellent composition and a good focus to one grave. But what is the subject? If it is only Alexander Sutschenko then it's a QI for me. However if it is the whole churchyard (Gräbern) then I think it is far from sharp because of the low f-value. --Michielverbeek 21:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
     Info It shows this single grave in detail as an example for all the others--Augustgeyler 02:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC
    Ok, thanks --Michielverbeek 06:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC))
     Comment Too little depth of field, below cropping too tight. For me it would not be a quality picture. -- Spurzem 20:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose Most of the picture is out of focus. IMO this cannot be justified with composition. --Palauenc05 09:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I'd allow it as artistic license. -- Ikan Kekek 05:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Look what I wrote above. -- Spurzem 06:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Per Ikan Kekek, to me the grabstone in the foreground looks fine in terms of quality, the rest is not essential to me and yes, I'd allow this kind of artistic touch, in the case that it was the intention here. The weaks goes for teh tight crop at the bottom and to me it looks a bit tilt in ccw direction --Poco a poco 16:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Excellent composition and good use of DOF, but the burnt sky in the background spoils it. Also somewhat too high colour saturation. --Smial 00:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support The use of low DoF is excellent, the composition is fine, only the top crop is too tight, and it’s a pity about the burnt sky. --Aristeas 08:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose Good idea but unfortunately not perfectly realised. The stone in the middle is not sharp enough and the eroded lights are disturbing. The crop is too tight.--Ermell 20:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)