Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 19 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:EC_163_Transalpin.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination EC 163 „Transalpin“ from Zürich to Graz passes Flaurling on the Arlbergbahn --Liberaler Humanist 16:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very pretty, reminds me of Kabelleger's photos --A.Savin 17:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree, really pretty. But sorry for questioning. Is the engine sharp enough? And a bit noisy? -- DerFussi 21:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per DerFussi: Yes, a bit, but it's an excellent photograph, and I don't think that level of near-perfection is needed to pass. I'm not sure I'd even advise Liberaler Humanist to make any changes, although if it's possible to very slightly tweak the sharpness and noise reduction without hurting the overall picture, sure thing, and then it might pass FPC, if nominated there, too. -- Ikan Kekek 21:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 22:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:St._James_Episcopal_Church_Wilmington_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. James Episcopal Church, a historic Episcopal church in Wilmington --EoRdE6 15:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment - Needs perspective correction. Declined pending corrections, which could change my vote. -- Ikan Kekek 16:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC) *@Ikan Kekek: How about now? --EoRdE6 03:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Nope. Still leaning back, etc. -- Ikan Kekek 00:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - As you haven't fixed the problem, I am declining the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek 20:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I attempted a fix but found it very unnatural, this photo was taken intentionally to capture this perspective. EoRdE6 05:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The problem here is not the church, but the building on the right, which is leaning heavily. Images playing with perspective of tall buildings are usually taken from closer range; here you're in between close and long range, making it difficult to do anything afterwards. Solution: reshoot. Either from further away (and correct the perspective afterwards) or closer, intentionally playing with the perspective. See the QI Guidelines (section: distortions) for more, and you can find a lot of examples of images playing with perspective here.--Peulle 17:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Those are good suggestions (I do feel it necessary to justify this angle though with the fact there was a four lane highway directly in front of me and a fence directly behind me) EoRdE6 03:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Understood, but that doesn't make the result a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 07:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Please sign your comment in order for the vote to be valid.--Peulle 13:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2016-09-21-Heliosturm_Köln-0080.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ancient lighthouse in Cologne-Ehrenfeld --Superbass 20:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Main object is for me not sharep enough for Q1 and the sky is a bit noisy, sorry a weak  Oppose --Michielverbeek 06:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The spots in the sky are a result of sensor misfunction of the drone camera. It will be hard work to clone them out. The tower is sharp enough IMO.--Ermell 07:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Sandro Halank 12:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's a close call for me, but I end up voting per Michielverbeek.--Peulle 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • weak  Support -- really diffucult. but at the end I agree Ermell and would vote for a weak support. -- DerFussi 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 15:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Jose Rizal National Monument.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The monument of Jose Rizal in Manila, Philippines. --Adamdaley 22:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good focus to main object --Michielverbeek 23:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but before image gets promotion to QI, it needs perspective correction. --Halavar 02:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)voting changed, please see down. --Alchemist-hp 21:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Perspective correction? Why? --Adamdaley 11:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Vertical lines should be straight. Look at the left side of the image - it leans to the right. --Halavar 13:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 Comment new straightened version uploaded. @Halavar ok now? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok, it's good now. --Halavar 17:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
     Comment @Halavar so plese strike you oppose ;-) --Alchemist-hp 17:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 15:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Burg Questenberg.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Castle Questenberg, Germany --Vincent Eisfeld 12:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 13:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
     Oppose the photo have been overexopsed --Christian Ferrer 16:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. I agree with Christian. This is a classic view that reminds me of paintings from the Romantic era and earlier, but please tone down the highlights. -- Ikan Kekek 16:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment I disagree with Ikan, if highlighs are decreased more than now, then the photo will lose its artistic touch, it will be "flat", and still will not be a QI IMO, the overexposition came at the moment to take the photo. This is not too bright, it lacks of details in the brightest areas, that's all. --Christian Ferrer 18:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      •  Comment Of course I will defer to Christian's knowledge. -- Ikan Kekek 06:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me, nice composition and even lighting imo. Would be nice to have a geotag. --Moroder 12:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed. A pity, because the composition and lighting situation is really excellent. But there are lots of artifacts due to repairing the sky. --Smial 08:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial. --Alchemist-hp 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 15:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)