Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 22 2014

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Dalian_Liaoning_China_Goliathus-goliatus-01.jpg

[edit]

 Oppose Too dark imo and therefore lack of detail. --Kadellar 14:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose With Kadellar--Jebulon 15:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I cannot enhance quality considerably; so I do agree and withdraw the image. --Cccefalon 13:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Triumph Tiger 800 MY 2012.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Triumph Tiger 800 -- H005 20:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment dark areas underexposed (lost shadows) --P e z i 21:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Not done --P e z i 14:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ fixed That was deliberate, as I liked it bettter that way. but I've now lightened it up if that's preferred. --H005 23:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    •  Support much better now (no need to hide this beautiful engine in the shadow :-)) --P e z i 20:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 18:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Wayside_Madonna_Selva.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Baroque wooden polychromed Wayside Madonna in the center of the town of Sëlva Gherdëina. --Moroder 12:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Considering the fact that it is a f/11 photo, taken during daylight, I have to decline because parts of the sculpture are not in focus. Sorry. --Cccefalon 14:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, up front the foto is not in focus but the single focus point is exactly on the face which is emphasized in this torso that way. There are tons of QI which don't have the whole image in focus --Moroder 21:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose DoF problems, I am sorry --The Photographer 23:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 Comment The intention was to focus on the face, the head (the back and the front are blurried on purpose) otherwise I wouldn't have taken a torso crop, but seems that noone wants to understand this --Moroder 13:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I'm afraid you failed in your attempt. As for me, only the neck (not the face) is sharp...--Jebulon 14:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)I counted this as an  Oppose --Cccefalon 14:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)no sorry, it was just a comment.--Jebulon 14:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I think so too --The Photographer 23:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Cccefalon 14:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Sheffield_Steel_Rollergirls_vs_Nothing_Toulouse_-_2014-03-29_-_8781.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Roller derby, jammer from blue avoid the blocker --PierreSelim 06:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Noisy and artefacts. --Cccefalon 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Easier to have a landscape (or a church) by daylight at ISO 100 ... --PierreSelim 16:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
     Support Ok for me given the conditions. Pleclown 11:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
     Support Remember a selective denoising in background --The Photographer 22:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 14:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Monestir_de_St._Benedict_(Sant_Benet)_de_Montserrat_-_Montserrat_2014_(3).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Monastery of St. Benedict, Montserrat, Spain --Jbribeiro1 02:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose blurred right half, tower is tilted --A.Savin 09:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
     Support It was a bit soft, but that was easy to fix. Tower looks straight to me. --Iifar 17:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 Support Need more DoF, cut on top (see rood). But This image IMHO is QI --The Photographer 20:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 13:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Kohlberg_Baden-Württemberg_Germany_Panoramic-View-01b.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view upon rule of the thirds of the village of Kohlberg, Germany --Cccefalon 07:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Both sides leaning out Poco a poco 08:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
     Question Where?? According to the metal lamp posts the view is rectilinear ... --Cccefalon 09:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    The right side maybe, I was deceived, but the left side needs definitely a correction Poco a poco 17:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
     Comment The composition of this version is ok by me. It would be interesting, whether Poco a poco see the same problems with the other two versions too. --Milseburg 13:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    Fixed I uploaded a revised version. --Cccefalon 19:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry Cccefalon, but I still see the problem Poco a poco 20:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
     Comment I don't want to fight about that, but in my opinion the lamp posts on the left side are now sufficiently rectilinar. I made an annotation for the area where I choosed my marks I used the lamp posts because they bear a sufficiently long line to make a decision. Also the church tower in the background is straight. Feel free to send it to CR. --Cccefalon 09:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, agree with you on that, a CR makes sense. I still see problems in the far left, those houses are not straight  Oppose Poco a poco 20:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
     Support Long in this section ends by becoming Cole Sear, we began to see things that are not there. I speak for myself even :) --The Photographer 20:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 11:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 13:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Stare_pojazdy_w_Bolszych_Kotach.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: Old vehicles. Bolshiye Koty, Siberia, Russia. --Halavar 22:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Review  Support ok --Cccefalon 03:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose I find it overexosed. Especially some parts of the truck. Besides, a better description and image location would be highly appreciated. --User:Struup
    ✓ Done Fixed overexposed parts. As for the other things: geolocation is not necessary in QI (in contrast to VI) and I can't add it, because there are no precise maps of this part of world. Description is good. --Halavar 16:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Cccefalon 13:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Berlin-Friedrichshagen_-_Straßenschild_Bölschestraße.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Berlin-Friedrichshagen: sign of Bölschestraße --Taxiarchos228 18:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 21:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks underexposed IMO. Elements at left are disturbing to me. And it needs a perspective correction.--Jebulon 19:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    it doesn't need respectively it has already, a full correction wouldn't look realistic --Taxiarchos228 11:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Cccefalon 14:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Bristol MMB «M6 Bristol East Junction.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bristol East Junction. Mattbuck 13:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion I made an annotation, how it could be a QI by altering the crop. --Cccefalon 13:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    Poco is right about the overall quality, I don't challenge that. But the very left is too blurry and needs a crop IMO. I won't sent to CR for now but I would appreciate, if you consider that isue, Matt. --Cccefalon 18:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
     Oppose I hoped for a reaction. Unfortunately I have to send it to CR now, because the blurry left side is not ok for a QI IMO. --Cccefalon 11:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    It's only been two days since you suggested a crop! I don't check QI that religiously. As for a crop, I did look at it, but I think the left side adds balance. Besides, the reflection is in focus. Mattbuck 21:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    Don't be upset. As usual, I had waited much longer but as a Poco bypassed my comment I had no other chance than sending it to CR yesterday evening because Poco's promotion had made a QI this morning. That's why I don't like getting bypassed. --Cccefalon 05:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Ah, ok, fair enough. I thought it had just been sent to CR because of your comment not getting an answer in 2 days, didn't notice Poco's comment. My apologies, I was clearly not thinking straight. I blame it on the York Fruits sitting on my desk, teasing me with their tastiness, knowing I can't open them as they're a gift to be given. Mattbuck 07:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
     Neutral I won't be a grinch for reason of a disputable crop. I change to a neutral vote. --Cccefalon 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 14:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Dorcus parallelipipedus Woblitz01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dorcus parallelipipedus --Kulac 10:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Gidip 05:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose DoF too shallow - only a small part of the beetle is in focus. Also some noise. --Cccefalon 07:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 CommentBecause of reviewers like you only pictures with objects perfectly perpendicular to the lens (like butterflies) are promoted in Commons. I think this is very wrong and limiting and neglects the whole beautiful concept of perspective in photography. Half of the beetle is very sharp. Regarding the noise - you can view the image at 60% or 70% and have a sufficiently large image with not too much noise. Great image for QI IMO. Gidip (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  •  Support QI for me. It is a female. --Archaeodontosaurus 15:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Do I understand right? It's a QI for you because it is a female beetle???? --Cccefalon 16:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I'm sure this lady is lovely, but this is the image that is QI. Sex is not mentioned in the caption, it's a shame. In this species you should see the two tubercles on the top of the head (see note). --Archaeodontosaurus 09:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Cccefalon 14:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Isatis_microcarpa_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Isatis microcarpa --Gidip 09:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Mostly out of focus. --Mattbuck 21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    It's called "perspective". Look at the F number and the lens type. --Gidip 07:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing really sharp. --Smial 13:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It doesn't have to be "really sharp" at 100% Gidip 15:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Cccefalon 13:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Exposicion comics-valencia-2009.JPG

[edit]
  • Nomination: Exhibition of superheroes of the comic in the Museo Principe Felipe de Valencia-Spain --alberto-g-rovi 05:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy, Vanoot59 17:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Too much on the left IMO, and does this pass copyright muster? Unless this statue is a permanent installation, surely it fails FoP? Mattbuck 21:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Cccefalon 13:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Zeta toy MMB 05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A wolf-style dildo. Mattbuck 07:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Interesting - I didn't knew that animal penis replica are on sold. But the right side is not sharp because of shallow DoF  Oppose. --Cccefalon 08:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    It looks sharp to me - it was taken at f/13, so I don't think DOF is an issue. Mattbuck 21:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • DOF is OK IMHO, but there's CA around it that should be removed (purple on the top, green on the lower side). -- H005 14:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC))
    I don't see it, certainly nothing which would be decline-worthy at 100%. Mattbuck 21:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsufficiant sharpness and lighting. Distracting background. -- Smial 13:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Cccefalon 13:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)