Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 19 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Portsmouth_Spinnaker_Tower_(2016).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spinnaker Tower, Portsmouth --Martinvl 21:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 22:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree - it has many red and blue CAs and tilts heavily to the left --DeFacto 19:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per DeFacto.--Peulle 10:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Paris Orlando 16:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Weaver_Bird_Nest.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Weaver bird nest of dry grass. --Prosthetic Head 12:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support - Good quality, IMO. Enough of the nest is sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 12:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose but too dark. should id species too--Charlesjsharp 14:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Charlesjsharp: Thanks for the feedback, it was being visited by Southern Masked Weavers (Ploceus velatus), so it's safe to say that's the species. In my opinion the brightness is ok and increasing it harms the quality of the background. --Prosthetic Head 15:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    thanks for id. If you could lighten shadows, that wouldn't affect background. Nests are usually not made with dead (dry) grass. Are you sure birds were visiting this nest? --Charlesjsharp 17:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Charlesjsharp: Have lightened, not sure which version I prefer personally - what do you think? Nest was landed on - can't be sure it was in active use as bird I saw didn't carry anything in. Nests green when made then dry out?--Prosthetic Head 23:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support for me it's a QI --Stepro 01:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support for me too. The nest (the important item) is fine, and the surroundings provide a nice background. --Aristeas 09:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Paris Orlando 16:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:NN_Moskovsky_Railway_Station_01-2019_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The city train of the Priokskaya line on the platform No. 5 of the Moscow railway station in Nizhny Novgorod. --AlexTref871 13:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohlerBremen 17:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy sky and at least two dust spots to be removed. --C messier 15:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The sky is OK (some noise is inevitable here and IMHO much better than too much de-noising), overall quality is OK, however, please remove the two prominent dust spots which C Messier has already marked (thanks!). If the dust spots are removed, I would support this image. --Aristeas 10:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The focus is on the train on the left. The rest is out of focus. --Ermell 20:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Paris Orlando 16:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Turnov,_stadhuis_op_het_Náměstí_Českého_ráje_Dm123596-5581_IMG_7101_2018-08-07_19.34.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Turnov Liberecký kraj-CZ, stadhuis op het Náměstí Českého ráje --Michielverbeek 22:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Visible, uncorrected barrel distortion. --Johannes Robalotoff 13:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please realize the square in the front is not flat --Michielverbeek 19:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I do not mean the square. I mean the tower. Same issue as with the other image of a tower. No surprise since barrel distortion is a common construction limitation of wide-angle zoom lenses. However it's not difficult to correct with various software and mostly auto-corrected nowadays for in-camera jpegs. --Johannes Robalotoff 06:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it. What should I look for? -- Ikan Kekek 23:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The tower is upright, but it is bent a bit like a banana, but of course not as strong as such a fruit. Therefore the center of its top is not exactly above the center of its base, but farther right on the image. I found it disturbing, especially when looking at the top with clock and roof, but obviously others do not find it that severe. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I still can't see it, though. -- Ikan Kekek 06:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me --Palauenc05 13:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support The barrel distortion is there, yes, I see it at the left edge of the tower, but it is unobtrusive here. However, @Michielverbeek, why not correct the distortion anyway? That should be rather easy! Do you need/want a little help? No offence, just wanting to help, --Aristeas 09:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me.--Fischer.H 10:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have made ✓ Donea small perspective improvement and hope I have reduced the distortion a little bit. At the same time I realize I don't have a superior camera --Michielverbeek 19:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Oh, you should not worry about your camera in this respect. There are zoom lenses which cost twice the price of your camera and still have rather strong barrel distortion at the wide end. The perspective correction didn't remove it, because perspective correction will not make bent lines straight. You need a special correction for barrel distortion. But anyway, as most people didn't feel that it's disturbing here, it looks as if the image will be promoted. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 15:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)