Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 22 2013

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Sue_Gardner_at_Wikimania_2013_in_Hong_Kong.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sue Gardner during her last speech as Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation at a Wikimania. Hong Kong, August 11th, 2013. --Frank Schulenburg 10:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion * Oppose  Neutral Quality is OK (with regard to the resolution but could benefit from masked sharpening to reduce noise on the background), but the shooting position is IMHO too low for a QI portrayal and leads to a very unfortunate photo of Sue Gardner. --Tuxyso 15:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. CR. --Kadellar 16:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Frank is a very good photographer, we all know that. But sometimes I do not understand why human portrayals are reviewed that laxly (compared to macro shots or architecture shots). She looks anywhere but not in direction to the camera (that should be the minimum requirement for a QI portrayal despite artistic shots). --Tuxyso 20:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree, Tuxyso. I'm not reviewing so laxly, I just don't think people have always to be looking at the camera (e.g. this one). Of course it's nice if they're looking, but it's not mandatory. --Kadellar 11:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support To me it's a very good portrait, telling a story besides its technical merit. Sue Gardner's pre-eminent position (as the post she had in WMF, and as an acknowledged powerful woman) is well called to mind by the low-angle shot, and she is looking elsewhere, further—that evokes her departure (this was her last speech as Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation at a Wikimania).--Myrabella (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I am unsure if this was the original intention of the photographer but your argument sounds plausible to me. I've changed to neutral. But I stick to my opinion that the shooting position is not really good for a human portrayal if the main interest lies on the person and not on the context and/or event the person is speaking on. --Tuxyso 14:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Here's my thinking behind the shot: the image captures Sue in a way that's very typical for her – listening to someone in the audience and being super focused and attentive. The low angle – as Kadellar already pointed out – somewhat naturally highlights her position as ED of the Foundation. This one shows her with a friendlier face, although – as someone who knows Sue well – I can tell you that both images capture what I find most typical about her (focused, open, friendly). However, I'm totally ok if people don't like the photos. I'm not here to make a point, I just want to explain what my thinking behind the shots was. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support As for Kadellar -- Smial 07:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 13:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 22:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Hyacinthoides × massartiana LC0140.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common Bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta), Wittgensdorf, Germany --LC-de 21:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Background is disturbing (please, see the picture with other size)--Lmbuga 21:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
     SupportI cannot understand your contra vote, sorry. This is a detail shot, DoF is OK. Probably LC-de can you reduce the highlights. --Tuxyso 22:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

 Comment I try to explain: Just behind the flowers there is another set of flowers. The composition seems to me not appropriate if the subject is front of some flowers with the same color. The picture is not QI for me. The background is disturbing. Sorry--Lmbuga 19:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support Not featured of course but QI for me --Christian Ferrer 05:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lmbuga is right there are too many blurred areas --Archaeodontosaurus 10:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Agree with Miguel, another angle (and exposure...) should have been chosen. Alvesgaspar 21:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 22:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Heroés_trujillenses_I.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Heroes trujillenses. Parque Fuerzas Armadas Nacionales --Rjcastillo 12:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose f/11 is definetly the wrong decision here, f/5,6 would have resulted in a less distracting background, in addition the lighting is poor, sorry --Poco a poco 15:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Not featured but enough quality IMO --Christian Ferrer 20:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Agree with Poco a poco. Alvesgaspar 21:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 22:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Mammoet_skelter.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mammoet skelter with moped engine --Uberprutser 21:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good but you could add some contrast and reduce the slight CW tilt. --Tuxyso 21:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    * I think there is more then enough contrast and no tilt to worry about. I assume you are talking about the horizon level. Tilt is usually used when pointing the lens up or down. btw, the ground is not flat. It's parked at a slightly bend corner. --Uberprutser 00:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's ok to me. Mattbuck 16:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 22:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Kaluga 2013 trolleybus 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination AKSM trolley in Kaluga, Russia. Photo by Kaluga.2012. --A.Savin 18:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion The composition doesn't feel quite right. It's not wide-angle enough to show the full context of the wires, but too wide to just be of the bus itself. Mattbuck 16:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Enough quality, trolley bus is entire --Christian Ferrer 12:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • And sharpness, colors, contrast... are very goods, I don't understand why this picture can't be QI, it is! --Christian Ferrer 18:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support As Christian Ferrer. --Dirtsc 17:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 22:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Ford_A_ver_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ford A --Villy Fink Isaksen 19:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Corrected --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    Flot billede. Førerens moustache passer også godt til bilen :-) --Slaunger 18:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
     Oppose - overexposed. Mattbuck 19:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    Tried to fix overexposed --Villy Fink Isaksen 11:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    Remapping the white point is not a fix. Mattbuck 21:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, all your images of the ford are good pictures IMO, but the blue of the sky of this image seems unnatural: too yellow, perhaps? --Lmbuga 19:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    new attempt adjustment whitebalance --Villy Fink Isaksen 17:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 22:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Educatieve doe- en beleeftuin van It Fryske Gea nabij De Alde Feanen. 03.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Garden Structure benefit of insects and butterflies.--
    Famberhorst 07:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality. --Dirtsc 15:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - the flowers just don't look right. Lack of fine detail causing oversharpness I think. Mattbuck 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same as above, I'm afraid.--Jebulon 00:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 22:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Evangelische Kirche Lorsch 2013.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Protestant church of Lorsch, Southern Hesse. -- Felix Koenig 16:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Further vertical correction necessary (especially at the left). --Tuxyso 06:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems ok to me. Mattbuck 09:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Dirtsc 16:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 22:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Retford railway station MMB 09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Retford railway station. Mattbuck 07:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Review  Neutral Blurred IMO, sorry --Christian Ferrer 14:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see what you mean. Mattbuck 16:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC) I Change to neutral, the right is too much blurred and also there is a spot, I have added note --Christian Ferrer 17:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Maybe I have been a little too fast, IMO you can improve it. I have maked a test and uploaded it, revert it and rework your version or keep mine, as you want --Christian Ferrer 18:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Forget, my version is a disaster, sorry --Christian Ferrer 18:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Now I've uploaded a new version (much better I hope --Christian Ferrer 18:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --A.Savin 22:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:RheinFantasie (ship, 2011) 128.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Passenger ship RheinFantasie in Cologne --Rolf H. 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Very dark shadows. Mattbuck 07:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
     CommentI photographed the image at 6:00 p.m.. The ship has tinted windows - I do not see any dark shadows. --Rolf H. 06:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 22:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:RheinFantasie (ship, 2011) 129.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Passenger ship RheinFantasie in Cologne --Rolf H. 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very dark shadows. Mattbuck 07:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  CommentI photographed the image at 6:00 p.m.. The ship has tinted windows - I do not see any dark shadows. --Rolf H. 06:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I agree with Mattbuck, the constrasts are too harsh. Please notice the underexposed front of the ship's bridge showing noise due to lack of light. -- Alvesgaspar 14:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 22:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Nottingham MMB D7 Wollaton Road.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wollaton Road, Nottingham. Mattbuck 07:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support OK --Christian Ferrer 04:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose missing sharpness --Rolf H. 09:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Indeed. I think I understand the purpose of the photo: to illustrate dof. But I don't think it works. -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 22:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Sines July 2013-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Beach and sky -- Alvesgaspar 23:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Dust spots, fairly dark, feels unbalanced. --Mattbuck 19:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC) -- Two dust spots removed. I don't agree that the image is dark and the composition unbalanced. Alvesgaspar 22:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Compo ok for me but a little dark for me too --Christian Ferrer 11:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment 1/2 f-stop brighter would be better. The red channel clips at the dark side of the histogram, all channels have some room in the bright areas. -- Smial 09:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Info-- Ok, here is an improved version. I just wanted to preserve the end of the day mood... Alvesgaspar 11:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now in my opinion. More votes? -- Smial 08:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me too. --Jebulon 18:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 22:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)