Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 30 2018

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Neues_Rathaus_München_2018.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination New Town Hall, Munich, Germany. --Pro2 10:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I think the bottom crop is too tight --Podzemnik 16:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - The building to the left of the Rathaus is a little unsharp, but the Rathaus itself is quite well depicted. I agree that more space in front of the Rathaus would be ideal, but I also know that it might be difficult, and this is acceptable, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 07:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Per Ikan Kekek --PJDespa 16:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I personally would have liked more space at the bottom as well, but it's almost impossible to have such a straight perspective while having more room for the Marienplatz. My other image from this perspective depicts this rather well. --Pro2 09:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support and Pro2 have a good point.--ArildV 21:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

File:IMG Copper Headed Trinket Snake.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Coelognathus radiatus in threat display. By User:Lurey Rohit --Biplab Anand 05:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO DoF too small and JPEG artifacts. --XRay 05:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Frank Schulenburg 05:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, forgotten: And I'm wondering about the EXIF data. Is the image really taken with a Canon EOS 6D? IMO the model name should be written with a capital "D". It looks the model name was added with a tool like exiftool. And please upload a not downscaled version of the photograph. --XRay 05:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Out of respect for XRay's questions, I will hold off from voting and wait. But that said, isn't the size big enough for wildlife photography? The snake is pretty big in the picture. And I agree with Frank that it's good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I would withdraw my contra vote. DoF isn't a major issue. These are IMO all minor issues: JPEG artifacts, crop, EXIF data, a little bit too dark. But IMO too much issues. --XRay 08:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per XRay.--Peulle 11:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment The photographer uploaded similar file yesterday. Please take a look. Thanks --Biplab Anand 16:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The user uploaded files with three different cameras (EOS 6D, 700D and 1200D or without camera), no lens information, nearly all in portrait format, nice exposure times like 1/909 s, photographer and uploader aren't identical. It is not a problem, if the photographs are taken with a smartphone, but the EXIF data should be correct. --XRay 08:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, BTW how is the new one?--Biplab Anand 16:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The new one is a new image and not a candidate, sorry. If the image is the same, please overwrite the old one. (There is a link on the file description page.) You do not need a new name, new file for improvements. The main issues are the JPEG artifacts and IMO a touch of blue. The touch of blue is a minor problem, but it can easily fixed. The JPEG artifacts may be a major problem, if you haven't the RAW file. --XRay 07:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@XRay: Would like to request you to check once the image now.-Biplab Anand 04:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not better. It's now overprocessed. --XRay 04:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per XRay and overprocessed --Llez 20:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

File:15-07-11-Flughafen-Paris-CDG-RalfR-N3S_8798.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pushback Traktor am Flughafen Paris Charles de Gaulle --Ralf Roletschek 12:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
     Oppose I overlooked those reflections and agree that it isn't a QI like this --Poco a poco 11:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing reflections. --Ermell 06:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell.--Peulle 15:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 06:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose insufficient quality, --Fischer.H 14:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)