Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 17 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:New_Brighton_Surf_Bathing_and_Lifesaving_Club_Memorial,_New_Brighton,_Christchurch,_Canterbury,_New_Zealand_15.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination New Brighton Surf Bathing and Lifesaving Club Memorial --Podzemnik 06:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Composition: Considering the negative space up top, the foot of the memorial should be visible. --MB-one 10:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree , composition is good to me --Cvmontuy 12:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition is debatable but respectable and not IMO clearly bad and therefore a good reason to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek 05:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I would have chosen another aperture, e.g. f/5.6, to blur the background more, but that is a matter of taste. Otherwise I have nothing to complain about in terms of technical quality and composition. --Smial 09:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Well composed and good use of blur in the background. --Augustgeyler 10:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Ceiling_of_Tabatabaee_mosque_at_Fatima_Masumeh_Shrine,_qom,_iran.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ceiling of Tabatabaee mosque at Fatima Masumeh Shrine, qom, ira --Amirpashaei 08:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Moahim 09:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We need to discuss this, I find this crop unfortunate --Poco a poco 17:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Great quality, and I find no fault with the crop. -- Ikan Kekek 08:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    Can then you explain what the image is showing? no lamp, no dome, no detail, no arquitectural element, and saying "the mosque" is not a valid answer. What is the different if I just point up the camera and shot? --Poco a poco 18:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's symmetrical and beautiful. Symmetry isn't random. -- Ikan Kekek 23:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I kind of like how the crop shows the spatial relations within the mosque --Kritzolina 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful image, and beautifully detailed. I also agree with Kritzolina's comment about the spacial relationships. --ReneeWrites 12:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support There are a lot of overexposed spots in the lamps and in the reflective elements, but they are unavoidable in such a shot. The extreme wide-angle projection leads to blurring in the corners of the photo. But both of these are only noticeable when viewed at 100% size or even higher magnification. I do not believe that such an interior can be transferred much better into a 2D representation. --Smial 14:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Boats_at_Teknaf_beach.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Moon boats at Teknaf beach, Cox's Bazar. --RockyMasum 21:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Very slightly tilted CW (check the horizon on the right. Otherwise good --MB-one 10:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good for me. I see no lack. -- Spurzem 09:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI disagree. Still tilted. --MB-one 16:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose At 100% view, the sky is grainy and the trees are blurred. Not a QI. --Tagooty 16:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 06:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me --Kritzolina 07:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I must agree with User:Tagooty. --Halavar 10:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support There's a low level of noise in the sky and the trees that lack detail are the ones in the background. It's not perfect, but it's good enough for QI. --ReneeWrites 12:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice picture. But technically it has lost to much detail due to compression.--Augustgeyler 14:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It cannot work with these camera settings. --Stepro 06:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Bad_Iburg-Glane,_die_Sankt_Johannis_der_Ältere_Kirche_IMG_6986_2020-08-01_15.50.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bad Iburg-Glane in Lower Saxony Osnabrück, church: the Sankt Johannis der Ältere Kirche --Michielverbeek 06:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The tower appears to lean to the right. --Johannes Robalotoff 08:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I did ✓ Done a small perspective improvement --Michielverbeek 21:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is a small difference, but the problem is far from being fixed. Therefore I think you are not using the right tool. Please have a look at Hugin --Johannes Robalotoff 16:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I have added four notes and I don't understand the problem. I also don't understand what hugin might do to improve this photo. I would like to hear more opinions --Michielverbeek 19:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually I did not oppose yesterday, just commented. I revisited the image now more closely with a (virtual) ruler. Thereby I found out that I was trapped by a kind of visual illusion yesterday - perspective corrections do not look completely natural on tall objects. Sorry for not measuring already yesterday. Another cause of error is the lantern at the right: After checking the walls of the church near it, I came to the conclusion now that this lantern must be heavily leaning in reality. So again sorry for the mistake. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Finally, after considering the rest - not only geometry - I decided to support. (You can't be blamed for the bad wheather on that day ;-). --JRff (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is not about bad weather. But there is a very low level of detail, perhaps due to hard compression.--Augustgeyler 12:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the "needles" at the top are blur. --Vincent60030 20:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Just good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 05:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose really dim poor lighting. Seven Pandas 11:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but with shutter 1/1.000 in combination with ISO 200 and f/6,3 the result should be much better. --Stepro 06:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)