Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 11 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Tramway_place_Cathédrale_Lisbonne_9.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tramways on Cathedral square in Lisbon, Portugal. --Chabe01 01:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 02:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
* Sorry, only eyes for the tram. It is tilted and should be fixed. --XRay 16:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong tilt to the left. Correction would result in too tight crop. -- Herbert Ortner 09:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment A CW spin of 4.5 with a crop of 2:1 AR gets it upright and doesn't take much more of the prime subject than what exists now. It might be that the original has been cropped in, which, if undone, might provide more leeway. --Acabashi 18:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 22:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Spenser_Mts_and_Opera_Range_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spenser Mountains and Opera Range, South Island of New Zealand. --Tournasol7 06:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ercé 06:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI disagree. 4.7 MP instead of 24.2 I can´t comprehend. --Milseburg 09:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Question - It is pretty small. Tournasol7, what's the story with this picture? -- Ikan Kekek 06:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that is a part of this image, but I'm not sure. In New Zealand during 3 weeks I taken about 5 thousands photos and I'm not able to remember stories with all pictures... Tournasol7 06:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand. -- Ikan Kekek 00:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't support a general ban on crops, but this photo is really too small. --Smial 09:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, I don't see the need for cropping or reducing the size on this type of photo. So unless there was a huge radio mast that needed to be removed...--Peulle 17:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 22:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Puerta_del_Perdón,_Catedral_de_Sevilla,_Sevilla,_España,_2015-12-06,_DD_90.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Puerta del Perdón, Cathedral of Seville, Seville, Spain --Poco a poco 08:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Perspective needs to be correct. --Moheen 09:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please, make up your mind, if you ask for an improvement it would be fair to wait with the veridict. Regarding your request, sorry, makes no sense, you expect a 10 meter high building which I photograph from the base to look like if I were levitating in the air in front of it?!? come on. Poco a poco 17:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Seems like generally good quality to me, but I see what seem like a few dust spots. Some may actually be little clouds, but look just to the right of the face and directly above it, near the top margin, at least. -- Ikan Kekek 18:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Dust spots cleaned Poco a poco 19:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
     Support - looks fine to me for QI. I would have cropped down the top with a 3:2 or even 16:9 AR to raise the subject in the frame, giving it more importance, but that's just being over picky. --Acabashi 08:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Red channel clipping leading to colour shift. --Smial 08:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    Smial: is it better now? I reduced the luminance of the red channel Poco a poco 19:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - For me it's QI -- Eatcha 09:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems fine. Nice and sharp. I would have brightened the shadows and dampened the highlights a bit, but that's me.--Peulle 08:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 22:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Felis_silvestris_catus.007_-_A_Coruña.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Felis silvestris catus (cat) in A Coruña, Galicia, Spain. --Drow male 08:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support - This one seems sharp enough, unless someone feels it's too dark. -- Ikan Kekek 05:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yep, too dark. And disturbing dirt on the ground -- Herbert Ortner 19:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)}
    •  Comment Herbert Ortner, if you want to oppose, you also need to change the file's status from "Promotion" to "Discuss", to move it to Consensual Review, where a majority vote is needed for promotion. I've taken care of that for you this time. -- Ikan Kekek 00:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Per Ikan and I don't think dirt has anything to do with QI -- Eatcha 12:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Piotr Bart 19:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 22:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Wikicamp_Nepal_2018_logo_v1.0.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wikicamp Nepal 2018 logo v1.0I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Bijay chaurasia 03:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, too simple to me, you can create such an illustration pretty quickly --Poco a poco 13:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)@
  •  Oppose I think this one is too simple.--Peulle 08:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Piotr Bart 09:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco. --Smial 09:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 22:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

File:विकिकार्यशाला_नेपाल_२०१८_लोगो_v_१.०.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wikicamp Nepal 2018 logo v1.0 --Bijay chaurasia 03:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Eatcha 09:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, too simple to me, you can create such an illustration pretty quickly --Poco a poco 13:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think this one is too simple.--Peulle 08:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Piotr Bart 09:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco. --Smial 09:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 22:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake_Hawea_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lake Hawea in Otago Region, South Island of New Zealand. --Tournasol7 06:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Question Looks good, but less then 50% of the possible resolution? --Milseburg 12:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
It was cropped. --Tournasol7 12:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
A facinating landscape. I can´t see any reason for eliminating so much by cropping. On the other hand, you would have been able to choose a higher focal length for your preferred cut to use the full resolution of your camera. --Milseburg 13:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I was cropped, because a part of landscape was out of focus. I saw this mistake later during postprocessing... --Tournasol7 19:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
That´s a pity. I don´t know, if it could become a QI then and send it to CR to hear other opinions. I noticed that some of your images are below the maximum resolution of your camera. --Milseburg 14:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - The hills on the other side of the lake are a little hazy, but good overall quality, IMO, and the photo isn't small, all told. -- Ikan Kekek 05:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry I have to oppose now. If mistakes by the fotographing are fixed by croping or downscaling it can´t become a QI. If it does, no one needs to strive for the full resolution any more and only pay attention to our very low 2MP limit. --Milseburg 11:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Question - What's wrong with cropping? -- Ikan Kekek 07:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Photographers should strive to exploit the full resolution of their camera. This also includes choosing the right frame already while fotographing. With such motifs, one can expect, that an image taken with a 24 MP camera already reaches the quality standards at well over 10.8 MP. Cutting is reducing the image similar to scaling down and this should be avoided, especially when by doing so this should appear a better quality, which the original resolution doesn´t have. Tournasol7 often nominates reduced images. It's hard for me to accept, that I'm striving for the full resolution of my small 12 MP camera and others make it themselves so easy with a 24 MP camera, by showing less then 50%. High resolution means high responsibility while fotographing, not the opposite. --Milseburg (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand your point of view, but I think this requires a discussion of new guidelines, and since there is no consistency even in opposing downsizing, I seriously doubt you could get consensus behind your point of view on cropping. But please make the proposal, so we can at least discuss it somewhere other than just a single CR thread. -- Ikan Kekek 10:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. Some areas look somewhat posterized. Size is ok, about 10 MPixels is more than needed for a high quality print in A4 (or letter) size. --Smial 11:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 22:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)