Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 26 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Chapel_of_Saint_Sebastian_in_Mikulov_-_west_side_2020.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination West side of the Chapel of Saint Sebastian on hill Svatý kopeček in Mikulov, Břeclav District, South Moravian Region, Czechia --T.Bednarz 00:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --The Cosmonaut 01:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No, sorry, first the verticals must be done. --Palauenc05 10:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Palauenc05 Sebring12Hrs (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Info @Palauenc05 and Sebring12Hrs: ✓ Done Verticals corrected. --T.Bednarz 16:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good for me Sebring12Hrs (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC).
  •  Support Fine 4 me, too. --Palauenc05 21:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 20:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 11:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Kamp-Lintfort,_Schachtanlage_Friedrich_Heinrich_1-2,_2020-05_CN-02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Landesgartenschau 2020 in Kamp-Lintfort: Friedrich Heinrich Coal Mine, winding towers of shafts 1 & 2 --Carschten 07:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 07:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose branch in foreground --Charlesjsharp 11:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Charles and the main object is a bit deformed --Michielverbeek 06:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done the branch was acceptable to me, but I've to agree it looks better without, so I uploaded a new version. The deformation is the fault of the architect (and maybe a bit because of the heat shimmer). --Carschten 09:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO good now. The deformation of the building really looks like the fault of the architect ;–), i.e. not due to the photo. --Aristeas 09:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 15:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good QI imo.--ArildV 18:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 11:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Senden,_Venner_Moor_--_2020_--_6626.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Canada geese in the Venner Moor near Senden, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noise from v high ISO --Charlesjsharp 11:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Info I've just reduced the noise and made some other improvements. --XRay 05:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and beautiful colors -- Spurzem 15:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 11:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Tejedor_común_(Ploceus_cucullatus)_hembra,_parque_nacional_Kruger,_Sudáfrica,_2018-07-25,_DD_53.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Village weaver (Ploceus cucullatus), Kruger National Park, South Africa --Poco a poco 08:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment The first version may appear a little bit less sharp than the rework, but has better resolution. The sharpening of the rework looks somewhat unbalanced and has amplified the noise in dark areas. I'd prefer the first version. --Smial 10:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I'm not convinced, but ✓ Done --Poco a poco 19:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Smial 09:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC) It's just that I always keep an eye on "overprocessing", and if the post-processing leads to new or different errors or inconsistencies in my opinion, then I prefer the original, even if it may have a little more noise within acceptable limits, for example, or shadows are a little dark, or high resolution images are not absolutely pixel-sharp etc.
  •  Oppose not a QI this one --Charlesjsharp 11:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    •  Comment Why? --Smial 11:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and very good composition. -- Spurzem 15:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 11:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Unidentified_coleoptera_mexico2020.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Unidentified coleoptera of Mexico, focus stacking of 20 --Cvmontuy 00:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 07:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose needs a lot of work on its right front leg --Charlesjsharp 11:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 15:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 11:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Teleférico,_Tromsø,_Noruega,_2019-09-04,_DD_26.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cable car, Tromsø, Norway --Poco a poco 06:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Noisy in the foreground and hazy in the distance --MB-one 12:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't really agree and welcome other opinions --Poco a poco 16:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support There is haze in the distance, right, but the main subject is not the city in the background, so the haze is OK and just natural for me. (I remember that landscape painters even “added” haze to the more remote objects in their paintings to give the landscape more depth; so some haze on the background may be even welcome.) The main subject is the cable car together with its cables, and the car is sharp and clean, the cables show an elegant curvature. So as a photo of the cable car at a day with cloudy weather this is good for me. --Aristeas 09:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Aristeas. --Smial 13:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 11:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Vertical_DLA_08K_20200512.png

[edit]

  • Nomination A vertical DLA beginning at the bottom. --PantheraLeo1359531 11:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question Would it be possible to make the image brigther, or must it be that dark? --Aristeas 16:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ DoneThanks for the rev, image is now brighter :) --PantheraLeo1359531 10:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Of course at the first glance one would want it to be even brighter, but looking at it at 100% it becomes clear that this is not easy, as the overall dark impression results from the dark background and the necessarily narrow lines. --Aristeas 10:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bitte nichts für ungut, aber ich kann mit diesem dunklen Bild nichts anfangen. Bitte diskutieren. -- Spurzem 12:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Also gut, ich wollte nicht so sein, aber wenn wir streng sind, dann ist es eben immer noch zu dunkel. Idee: Wäre es vielleicht möglich, den schwarzen Hintergrund durch einen grauen zu ersetzen? Dann würde automatisch das ganze Bild heller. Allerdings würde sich dann die farbigen Linien nicht mehr so gut abheben, aber das muss dann eben in Kauf genommen werden. --Aristeas 19:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Cool visualization, high quality. --King of Hearts 04:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose High resolution, but not a good visualisation. You can't really see anything unless you zoom in to 1:1, i.e. look at each pixel individually. But then the overview gets completely lost. To illustrate the principle in an instructive way, a much lower resolution would be sufficient and even necessary. I programmed a cellular automaton for the C64 decades ago, with 320*200 pixels. At that time I would have wished for a slightly higher screen resolution, but the principle of operation was more visible than with this pixel monster. --Smial 11:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 11:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)