Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 16 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Cairn-Pennine-way-great-shunner-fell.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Small cairn on the Pennine Way north of Great Shunner Fell --Kreuzschnabel 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment fine picture, the cairne is absolutely clear and sharp, but are you sure, that f/6.7 was the right decision? Look at the background..--Hubertl 19:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The cairn is sharp and in focus, the background is ouf. That's wrong? --ArildV 20:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
      •  Comment As I said, it´s a fine picture! And it´s worth for QI. Its not wrong to talk about. There is no bokeh, and on the other hand no sharpness. Something in the middle. --Hubertl 21:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
        •  Comment It’s a decent bokeh. And yes, I am sure I chose a very appropriate aperture setting. A crisp sharp background would a) cause diffraction due to stopping far down and b) make the cairn less standing out. On the other hand, I wanted to convey an idea of the surrounding scenery, that’s why I didn’t open the aperture to get more bokeh. I really don’t know what is to be discussed here. Is it QI for you or isn’t it? Everything beyond is a matter of taste. --Kreuzschnabel 08:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. What is "no bokeh"?!??? --Smial 22:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment There are some open questions I want to discuss. --Hubertl 23:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
      • If you want to discuss about matters of taste, you should have a view at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Diskussionen_%C3%BCber_Bilder . QIC initially was intended to get a quick decision about sufficiant image quality, thumbs up or thumbs down. CR is meant to discuss questionable decisions. But you did not mention quality issues. Why CR? -- Smial 10:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot then for forcing my nomination to stay here for at least 8 days, even if you don’t oppose for quality issues, instead of being promoted the usual way. What are you playing at? --Kreuzschnabel 23:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support For me there is no doubt about it: Good quality --DKrieger 21:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and reasonable background blur --Shansov.net 23:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 06:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 13:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Pipe_organ_of_the_cathedral_in_Sutri.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pipe organ of the cathedral in Sutri --Livioandronico2013 08:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Ok --Uoaei1 14:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, but the shadow part under the organ is noisy and not drawn. --Steindy 02:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Livioandronico2013 11:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 Support Okay now. --Steindy 01:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Gdańsk, Westerplatte, wartownia nr 6 (WLZ14).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Westerplatte Barracks, Gdańsk, Poland --1bumer 13:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 14:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DOF IMO. --Mattbuck 00:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF (f/3.5) too small.--XRay 13:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Low DOF supports intention. Good composition. -- Smial 20:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 08:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 14:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Watling Street Road Workhouse.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Former Watling Street Road Workhouse, Preston, Lancashire, UK. --Baresi franco 12:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Weak  Support Good quality. Would be better taken from a higher position. --XRay 10:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Baresi franco: , @XRay: - did you noticed the 2 unsteady parts from stitching (see note)? Also there is magenta fringing especially on the right side. --Cccefalon 15:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks both, and well spotted @Cccefalon: ! I've addressed both the stitching and CA issues, I think. --Baresi franco 21:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose - Still some M/G CA on the right, general lack of fine detail (focal point appears too close). It also gives off a feeling of leaning over to the right like ////, but seems mostly straight somehow. Mattbuck 23:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Sorry. I haven't seen the stitching errors and IMO they are still there (look at the door in the middle). And I've seen the CAs at the right too. --XRay 10:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

File:USO-Gloucester_Rugby_-_20141025_-_James_Hook_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination USO-Gloucester Rugby - 20141025 - James Hook --Pleclown 11:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality, background a little bit noisy. --XRay 09:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    A little bit noisy? Way too noisy.  Oppose --Mattbuck 23:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise.--Jebulon 20:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same for me as the cricket pic above. Nice depiction of the scene yet technically too poor, due to noise in this case. --Kreuzschnabel 06:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Remains_of_Roman_column_in_the_Basailica_of_San_Paolo.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Remains of Roman column in the Basailica of San Paolo --Livioandronico2013 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Weak  Support Disturbing shadows, but IMO still QI. --XRay 08:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadows need brightening, perspective needs correction, and left side needs de-blurring. --Mattbuck 23:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Mattbuck.--Jebulon 20:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Bij Trintelen, panorama foto6 2014-09-28 12.40.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination near GulpenWittem-Trintelen, panorama --Michielverbeek 21:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC))
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 23:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs brightening, and there are a few small dustspots. --Mattbuck 21:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • still  Oppose Nice but underexposed. Brightening the JPG (the top 2 stops in the histogram are empty) makes it noisy. Is the raw file still with us? --Kreuzschnabel 09:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark (and may it become noisy if it were brightended).--XRay 11:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Droga_w_kierunku_jeziora_Rica,_"Miodowy_Dwór"_(08).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Beehive. "Honey manor". The road towards the lake Ritsa, Abkhazia. --Halavar 11:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 12:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some unsharpness at top, slight motion blur? I'd also make the image darker, especially the bright areas, as it looks almost overexposed. --Mattbuck 15:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New, fixed version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 18:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    Better, but the blur persists. Mattbuck 00:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Dnalor 01 16:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted C messier 14:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2014-Swaledale-Reeth-Grinton.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from Skelgate Lane over Reeth towards Grinton Moor --Kreuzschnabel 09:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The focus is somewhere on the left side of the stone wall, the house and everythin on the right side is unsharp, The tree in the center is blurrish. Together with the unfavorable sky and misty horizont, its not QI for me. Not fixable IMO. --Hubertl 12:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 18:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a QI IMO --Dnalor 01 16:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Hubertl. --Steindy 01:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 14:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Black-headed gull adult, Lachmöve(Chroicocephalus ridibundus).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Black-headed gull adult, Lachmöve(Chroicocephalus ridibundus) --NoRud 11:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support QI -- Spurzem 17:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nor very sharp, overexposed --Christian Ferrer 19:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Reduced.--NoRud 10:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 23:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose Overexposure and severe posterization on the bright parts of the plumage while the surrounding is too dark, so contrast is way overdone (I can’t believe it came out of the camera like this). WB off, most of the bird looks violet. Sharpness could be better but still ok for me if it weren’t for the other issues. Honestly, why others think this is QI is really beyond me in this case.
     Comment Your vote will count when you sign. whoever you are! --Hubertl 20:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
     Strong oppose As for the facts, he’s perfectly all right. --Kreuzschnabel 12:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per the anonymous person. Mattbuck 15:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the anonymous opposer's comment is a little bit harsh. The picture has some fixable shortcomings but it is not so bad at all. NoRud: Do you eventually have a RAW file of the picture? --Code 21:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Billy69150 12:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support A very interesting image, especially the small details of the beetle, which disdains headed Gull --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with the anonymous. --C messier 14:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise, posterized. Sharpness and composition below average. -- Smial 22:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined Code 13:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2013-08-17_Lago_di_Fusine_superiore_-hu-_A_4598.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The dried alp in Summer 2013 above the upper Fusine lake, Fusine di Valromana, Tarvisio, Friuli --Hubertl 00:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good Quality.--NoRud 09:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad quality - perspective issues (see tree angle), significant blur, lack of fine detail. --Mattbuck 22:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per M. --Christian Ferrer 18:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 23:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Per R.R. --Dnalor 01 16:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Usually, we say "per N.N." to agree with N.N.’s statements, but R.R. did not make any in this case ;-) --Kreuzschnabel 07:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Mattbuck. Looks oversharpened to me despite lack of detail, there’s a bright seam following the horizon line. That given alone would not make me oppose but the perspective issue does. --Kreuzschnabel 07:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 17:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Mattbuck and bad crop below.--Jebulon 23:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted Code 06:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Banteay_Kdei,_Angkor,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_02.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Banteay Kdei, Angkor, Cambodia --Poco a poco 08:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality. --XRay 17:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose Overexposed I think, and some blur, esp at right. --Mattbuck 23:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the clouds have been overexposed, cAs on tree at right --Christian Ferrer 18:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version with tighter crop Poco a poco 20:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Always a bit of overexposeure and not sure I prefer this tight crop to the exposed sky --Christian Ferrer 06:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --XRay 15:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)