Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 20 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:20190623_Wodna_Masa_Krytyczna_na_Wiśle_w_Krakowie_1431_9634_DxO.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Water Critical Mass event on Vistula River in Kraków --Jakubhal 20:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The boat on the right is disturbing, sorry. --Peulle 22:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. For sure the boat on the right is a problem. But it is not a FPC and I belive it is enough for QIC. I would like to see other opinions. --Jakubhal 18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem, let's see what others say. :) Just so you don't think I took this from nowhere, I was referring to the "Composition" section of the QI Guidelines, which say that: "the elements within the image should support depiction of the subject, not distract from it.". I felt that this part of the boat on the right side distracts from the subject, which is otherwise well captured.--Peulle 10:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed. --Smial 10:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Funny and good quality -- Spurzem 15:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Catedral_de_Puebla,_México,_2013-10-11,_DD_08.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Puebla Cathedral, Mexico --Poco a poco 07:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Why landscape orientation? Portrait would have allowed less perspective distortion. --Smial 07:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, what can I add, it is as it is... --Poco a poco 09:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Cvmontuy 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Wrong image orientation, so unecessary extreme perspective. --Smial 09:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The positive first rating above is amazing. I can not gain the photograph anything. The perspective gives hardly any impression of the building, the strong shadows in the foreground are unattractive and the picture loses sharply upwards. -- Spurzem 09:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    You are really pushing hard Spurzem to aggravate this issue instead of mitigating it. I'm being polite enough to you not reviewing your images which often are hardly above the bar, don't wikihound me! --Poco a poco 19:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO the image is good as it is. It was the artistic choice of the photographer to try landscape orientation here; as we can learn from probably any textbook about photography, sometimes it is appropriate to break the rules to get a fresh expression; and this image actually has quite some effect. All (other) technical things are done well. So, maybe not the most usual kind of building photos here at QI, but an interesting image and good quality. --Aristeas 07:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Aristeas.--Ermell 20:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Rbrechko 00:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion {{{2}}}

File:Verena_Stauffer_at_Lyrikmarkt_Berlin_2019_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Verena Stauffer reading at the Lyrikmarkt Berlin 2019 --Kritzolina 21:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  OpposeCropped hair is not nice. --Dktue 21:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The crop is fine to me, but it has lack of detail, sorry --Cvmontuy 03:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Not a studio shot but in a live situation and therefore by far good enough, --Smial 10:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image. Perhaps it could be cropped more at the right. -- Spurzem 21:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Cvmontuy.--Peulle 22:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Resolution is pretty high but the lack of detail is obvious also at smaller sizes Poco a poco 19:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I consider a rejection of this image with the mentioned "too little detail" argument unobjective and for a case of double standards. In the conditions for QIC we have a few exceptions for the evaluation of images if they were taken under particularly difficult conditions. These include taking pictures in difficult lighting conditions, in which both an increase in image noise is permitted, provided that it remains within reasonable limits, and a certain degree of downscaling or lower resolution is permitted compared with easy-to-take pictures. We clearly have a shot here that was taken under difficult circumstances (ISO800, 1/125s at 400mm 35mm equivalent focal length) and is also available at full resolution. If the image had been scaled down appropriately, the low blur would not be noticeable at all and the image would be accepted as QI without much objection. At least if it had been presented by the "right" photographer. --Smial 09:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
  •  Support nice crop. --Ralf Roletschek 13:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 00:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Newhall_Pass_Interchange_from_bypass_2016-11-28.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Newhall Pass interchange. (by Junkyardsparkle)- Fluffy89502 04:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support
    Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 04:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    Again: Good quality, but not your photo. Please fix the nomination per the instructions above on how to nominate other people's photos, or I'll move this to CR until you do. -- Ikan Kekek 18:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    Nitpicky procedural  Oppose until the photographer is duly credited in this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek 04:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done @Ikan Kekek: my apologies :/
  •  Question - Ralf, why are you supporting when the photographer is not duly credited in the nomination? You should really remove your supporting vote until that is taken care of. I, too, will support, but only then! -- Ikan Kekek 15:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Because it's a quality Image. --Ralf Roletschek 09:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's a quality image, but the attribution is of no importance whatsoever to you? -- Ikan Kekek 08:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurry IMO.--Ermell 06:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Seven Pandas 20:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek 05:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell --Tsungam 08:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell --Cvmontuy 18:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is no detail here, it looks like camera shake, not a QI to me, sorry --Poco a poco 19:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Motion blur. -- Smial 10:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)