Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 03 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Doohaki Mandi Himachal Nov20 D72 19237.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mountain setting of Duhaki village, Mandi District, Himachal Pradesh, India. Elev. 1,265m (4,150') --Tagooty 14:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Good composition. But level of detail and sharpness are far below QI standards. --Augustgeyler 19:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I believe there is sufficient detail and sharpness from the slate roof in the foreground to the trees along the distant skyline. Request some additional opinions. --Tagooty 04:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose colours, probably camera shake --Moroder 06:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Subtle colours are common at the end of fall, with greens turning brownish and dull. With the sun low in the sky, haze is common in the Himalayas. I've dehazed a bit, but more would make it unnatural. --Tagooty 14:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak support. I don't actually see any serious mistakes that could be the fault of the photographer. However, the lens used is obviously not capable of delivering the full resolution for a 24-mpixel sensor. The same is true for many lenses that were designed at a time when cameras with only six pixels were common, and even with new models, only very expensive and complex designs can achieve this. What I criticize about the photo is the somewhat bumpy sharpening and here and there small remains of CA. Considering that at least the full camera resolution was delivered, I think the picture is still acceptable. --Smial 11:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 01:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Tarifs_carte_de_pêche_à_l'étang_Pique-Pierre.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rates for fishing card at Pique-Pierre pond at en:Saint-Martin-le-Vinoux, France. --Touam 18:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 04:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective is not good. The picture is casual, so the quality of the perspective with the tree or with the poster must be very good for me. --Sebring12Hrs 13:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment What is, for you, a very good quality of perspective of a tree or a poster ? --Touam 06:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Et bien je trouve que les bords des affiches penchent trop par rapport au bord du cadre de la photo. C'est surtout visible sur la gauche. Il va y avoir d'autres avis ne t'inquiète pas, peut-être que je suis trop élitiste. C'est une simple photo d'affiches, et donc j'aurais aimé que la perspective soit meilleure. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment (thanks, in french it's more more more easy for me hu hu) Mais... il me semble que ce cadre penchait en réalité. La prochaine fois que je vais dans le coin j'y retournerai voir. Et je ne comprends rien à cette histoire de double nomination ? --Touam (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is technically good quality, but the composition doesn't work for me, sorry. I would either like to see both signs in full, or a clearer crop focused on the main subject. --Kritzolina 10:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment This seems to be a case of duplicate nomination and the image has already been promoted on Nov 22nd. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as delisting for QI. So I guess we should just close this nomination. --MB-one 18:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose I like that scene. The composition is not ideal but OK. The focus is not well placed. I would vote neutral. But as MB-one wrote that image was nominated before and should be rejected. --Augustgeyler (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Double nomination --Moroder 11:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)