Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 22 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Akuten, SUS.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination The emergency department at Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden. --Julle 21:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree: Much too noisy, green CA on the top of the building, magenta CA at the lights, perspective is not done, massive loss of detail and sharpness because of the high ISO and low F-number. This can't be QI IMO. You should go there again with a tripod and take another picture using ISO 100 or 200, aperture between f/8 and f/11 and a longer exposure time. Honestly I don't think that one can take a QI with the EOS 100D at ISO 3.200 at all. --Code 18:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Dare it, this will be a nice challenge! Long exposure with the ghosts of the cars and the red and white light lines. --Hubertl 07:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hubertl: You're right. Maybe the only possibility would be to take the picture with a better camera... --Code 21:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't have access to this particular spot any longer, unfortunately. It's taken from a window in a private office. /Julle 21:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Code. Sorry. --C messier 11:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Brooklyn_Botanic_Garden_New_York_May_2015_007.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sakura, Brooklyn Botanic Garden. --King of Hearts 03:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The perspective distortion is disturbing. --Hubertl 04:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment This is intentional; the point of an ultrawide lens is to let you lie low and point it up at a tree. --King of Hearts 04:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
      •  Support King of Hearts is right. That perspective distortion talk is rubbish. The next thing that guy will try to tell you is that the corners aren’t sharp – on a 11mm lens! He’s trolling me too --Nubero 08:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 Strong oppose The perspective distortion is Terrible --Livioandronico2013 21:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  •  Oppose because of the strong perspective distortion -- Spurzem 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 12:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Tower of Christ Church, Macclesfield.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tower of Christ Church, Macclesfield --Daniel Case 21:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction. --Gzzz 21:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment IMHO, a perspective correction would give a completely unnatural result, but what concerns me is some that appears like a fingerprint at the top of the clock tower (see note). --C messier 13:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
      •  Comment Do note that this is a staged tower, with every stage slightly smaller than the one below, that I was photographing from slightly below its base. So what appears to be bad perspective is actually, as you noted, completely natural. Daniel Case 05:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective correction where it is appropriate, but not in this case. Nevertheless, have a look at this "fingerprint". And the blue, is it real, or an effect of non-sRGB colour space?-- KlausFoehl 13:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    •  Support I double that. There’s way too much talk around here about perspective correction from people who apparently don’t get when it is appropriate (hint: most of the time it’s not). Regarding the smudge it would appear to be a lens flare… I wouldn’t even necessarily fix that. --Nubero 13:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment I looked at it. I don't think it's a fingerprint; none of the other pictures before or after it show the same smudge. It's probably just an accident of the sunlight catching the lens at that particular angle. I'm not really sure what to do about it, though I'm sure it's fixable. Daniel Case 22:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 19:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry to disagree with the peremptory comment of Nubero, but as say our guidelines here in Commons, a perspective correction is needed for this picture, even if our friend Ralf tries to make his point, as usual.--Jebulon 23:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC) And please correct the five or six dust spots (enough for an oppose..).--Jebulon 23:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I like the picture, but ist does not make sense to ignore the guidelines that much. The distortion ist to extreme to ignore it. If you don't like the guidelines, please discuss the matter, I would not oppose. --DKrieger 22:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots, lens flare ("fingerprint"), oversaturation, perspective. -- Smial 09:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 05:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Г.Менчил_(Варшава)_(высота_1072м.)_013.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Сколівські Бескиди, Сколівський, Дрогобицький, Турківський райони. By User:DmytroChapman --Ahonc 23:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Overprocessed: huge parts with loss of details; sky on the verge to jpeg artefacts --Cccefalon 01:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
     Support Perhaps not excellent but a very good QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 06:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support looks fine --Denkmalhelfer 05:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC) I stroke the vote of a banned sockpuppet out. --Cccefalon 17:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment while Cccefalon is perfectly right, I believe that the picture can be fixed. Maybe sacrificing resolution, but there is enough space to downscale the image and still remain within QI requirements. Hint for the author. -Artemy Voikhansky 17:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 18:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 17:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Mosquito_(Tipula_Maxima),_jardín_del_molino,_Sierra_de_San_Felipe,_Setúbal,_Portugal,_2012-05-11,_DD_01.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Mosquito (Tipula maxima), mill garden, Sierra of Saint Philip, Setubal, Portugal --Poco a poco 22:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment I think this is a crane fly, not a mosquito.--Charlesjsharp 09:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    Note:Crane flies belong to the Tipulidae familie, also the Tipula Maxima, are you fine if I rename to "Tipúlidos (Tipula maxima)"? Poco a poco 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Supportlooks fine. --Denkmalhelfer 10:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet Poco a poco 20:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, renaming won't help; this not Tipula maxima. --Charlesjsharp 10:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 08:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 17:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)