Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 22 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Zamosc_Fort_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral behind the Defensive Wall of the city of Zamość, southeastern Poland --Scotch Mist 15:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness not OK for me, sorry --A.Savin 15:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek 22:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, the wall (which is part of the subject) in particular is unsharp (DoF too shallow).--Peulle 20:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Sogndalsfjorden,_2016.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sogndalsfjorden --Bep 11:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support nice --Pudelek 16:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - There are a number of dust spots that should be corrected before this photo is promoted. Bep, would you like to work on that? -- Ikan Kekek 11:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Temporary  Oppose - Nice image, but the dust spots need to go first...--Godot13 06:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Monaco_glacier_in_Liefdefjord,_Svalbard._A_meltwater_cave_hosts_a_flock_of_hunting_kittywakes.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Monaco glacier, Svalbard, meltwater cave --AWeith 00:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice. -- Ikan Kekek 01:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Very nice take and composition but noisy and lack of detail --Moroder 09:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. TBH, arguing about lack of detail is not very serious... Yann 12:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Sharpness and noise level could have been somewhat better. But if the weather conditions demand ISO 800, then this must be used. Not perfect, but in 100% view "good enough". Btw: Please do not deprecate the opinions of others. --Smial 16:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Impressive composition. --Palauenc05 16:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Fisherman in Kampong Phlouk.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fisherman in Kampong Phlouk. --Tournasol7 15:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Interesting shot but not really sharp (not sure whether wrong focus or just motion blur) --Poco a poco 20:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Since it is moving, it looks OK to me. The focus is not on the face, but then the boat would out of focus. --Yann 09:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Just like Poco --Michielverbeek 06:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The file refers to the fisherman, who is out of focus. But regardless of the filename, I think the DoF is too short, and I'm not OK with so much of the picture being so drastically out of focus. This isn't a macro picture of some tiny insect's head. -- Ikan Kekek 10:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Grua_maquina.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grúa mecanica --The Photographer 13:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The software is telling me it's too small --Daniel Case 07:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment A Svg haven't a fixed size --The Photographer 10:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me, and SVG have no minimum size, here, correct. As a suggestion, personally I would prefer a Sansserif font here. By the way, in Technical Documentation they say it's better for translation not to include texts directly in an image but numbers only, because it's easier to give a legend as text below later. --Basotxerri 16:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with everything Basotxerri said.--Peulle 13:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question - Where are the guidelines for SVGs shown, including the lack of a minimum size for them? -- Ikan Kekek 11:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Here, under "resolution".--Peulle 23:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, and  Support. -- Ikan Kekek 05:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Mezquita_del_Viernes,_Baku,_Azerbaiyán,_2016-09-26,_DD_35.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Juma Mosque, Baku, Azerbaijan --Poco a poco 16:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment People distraction, left and right top corner are blurred because perspective distortion --The Photographer 16:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Poco a poco 18:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, as you might already know, the totally white sky is unacceptable for me. For some people here, it's apparently acceptable, so feel free to CR. --A.Savin 22:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 Comment There are place like São Paulo where the sky is white almost everyday because the clouds cover the firmament --The Photographer 23:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
You seem to confuse grey with white. --A.Savin 17:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The color of the sky shouldn't be an oppose reason. If it's overexposed then there would be a problem. An overexposed sky is relatively easy to identify as the borders of everything around it are either colored or "eaten" Poco a poco 08:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
If I say "white sky", I mean of course overexposed. What else did you think? Normally, the sky isn't completely white and if it appears near white, that are clouds and/or fog. In such cases, some detail should remain too. But here in this photo I cannot identify any detail above the building, just plain white. --A.Savin 13:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I underestand you because i come from a Caribean country where the colors are very "satured" and white is in the 99% cases oversatured. However, when you are residing in a different latitude zone colors change and specifically luminance level. IMHO in this case is simply clouds and I find this sky white beautiful too. --The Photographer 16:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Why is complete cloud cover a bar to QI? And if you look carefully, toward the top, there is just a little blue peeking through. -- Ikan Kekek 06:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Doesn´t appear burnt to me.--Ermell 08:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I've taken a look at it in Photoshop and most of the detail in the sky is gone. Just because it isn't 255 doesn't mean it isn't blown out - I think with an exposure of 1/40s at f/11, you're bound to lose almost everything in the RAW, and pulling it back in Lightroom only changes the white point to be artificially low even though there's no detail to recover. -- King of Hearts 23:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The building is sharp, and that is what's important. Yann 12:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --The Photographer 11:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Buteo_buteo_-_Common_buzzard,_Mersin_2016-12-11_01-5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo) watching to predate. Mersin, Turkey. --Zcebeci 10:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 12:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree big cloning artifacts on lower left side --Cvmontuy 17:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment You have a good eye, Cvmontuy. I see what you're talking about. Zcebeci, would you like to edit that out? -- Ikan Kekek 06:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I see no action on this, so I will join Cvmontuy and  Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek 10:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Kosice 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture exhibiting the first municipal Coat of Arms in Europe above Town Hall entrance in Koscice, in eastern Slovakia, complemented by additional roof sculptures --Scotch Mist 15:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support ok --A.Savin 08:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Sorry, I think this is too unsharp to be designated a Quality Image. -- Ikan Kekek 13:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Have sharpened image. --Scotch Mist 14:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Better, but still not a QI in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 22:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Not perfect but a week pro.--Ermell 08:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK 4 me --Palauenc05 15:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition. The triangle of this pediment is badly cropped at left. A perfect symmetry is necessary for such a picture IMO.--Jebulon 11:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jebulon, the clipped triangle makes the centering feel off balance.--Godot13 06:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image quality is too low, looks denoised and not sharp. --Shansov.net 14:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Image has not been denoised. --Scotch Mist 17:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Obelisco_di_San_Domenico_Maggiore_2_a_Napoli.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The spire of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples. --Moroder 08:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The bottom is sharp, but the further to the top the more unsharp it gets and for an obelisk I consider the top important to be sharp. Furthermore the top crop is too tight, probably the image was taken too close to the motif. Not a QI to me, sorry. --Poco a poco 18:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)  Support supporting now the new version Poco a poco 18:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, fixed --Moroder 10:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 Comment Sorry, not really convinced yet, I'd like to hear other opinions Poco a poco 17:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support More sharpness wouldn't help the sculpture. I think the obelisk as the is main object is clear enough. @Poco We all struggle with the difficulties in narrow streets of old towns--Ermell 08:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 12:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd support the new version (by Christian) if Wolfgang decides to keep it Poco a poco 19:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm glad that Christian uploaded his new version and to get more support. From my point of view I am not so fond of technical postprossesing as sharpening while I consider "creative" postprossesing like perspective correction, color and light adjustments, cloning more essential for QI --Moroder 06:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)