Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 01 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:2020_Kościół_św._Józefa_Oblubieńca_w_Boleścinie_5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Joseph church in Boleścin 5 --Jacek Halicki 07:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sorry but the left shadow is hiding essential parts of the main object. --Augustgeyler 17:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support No it isn't. They're visible, just in shadow. -- Ikan Kekek 05:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The lighting and hard shadows are not really optimal, but the details are still visible in both the bright and dark parts of the image. --Smial 14:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 16:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Jakubhal 16:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Jakubhal 16:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Riga_Landmarks_99.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Riga Castle on Daugava River Embankment --Scotch Mist 05:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 10:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too dark and composition shows to much sky. --Augustgeyler 16:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not sure whether I'd support or not, but first, please fix the dust spot that's in the upper right quadrant at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek 09:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Good spot - removed and cropped sky --Scotch Mist 11:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Still at least one left on upper right side --Moroder 01:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Dust spot removed - thanks for taking time to assess --Scotch Mist 06:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 07:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it has a very high saturation and the shadows (trees) are still way to dark.--Augustgeyler 09:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: Thank you for your further opinions but while I have cropped the sky (as you suggested) I have not attempted to lighten the trees as such action,IMHO, could distract from the primary subject of the photograph - perhaps you could consider that others make different "artistic choices" (as pointed out by Ikan Kekek) that don't necessarily compromise QI and possibly review your opposing view --Scotch Mist 16:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Scotch Mist: 1st: Composition is now perfect. 2nd: I respectfully considered the others opinions. But I still think these very saturated and dark shadows do compromise QI. That's my point of view. --Augustgeyler 18:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Pretty good quality, but I'm feeling doubtful that the water was so dark. Am I wrong for doubting that? -- Ikan Kekek 10:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Ikan Kekek: The Daugava River can look very dark, especially later in the day!:) --Scotch Mist 14:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, I'll call this a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 06:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am wondering that nobody is seeing the very dark trees and that very high contrast. Perhaps it's a matter of taste or I am just completely wrong. --Augustgeyler 20:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Riga_Landmarks_56.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Riga Castle backdrop to Latvian Cycle Race --Scotch Mist 05:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Isiwal 08:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Composition is ok, but the camera was tilted very high showing too much sky. The shadows are too dark. --Augustgeyler 16:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Dust spot near upper right corner. -- Ikan Kekek 09:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Dust spot removed - thanks for taking time to assess --Scotch Mist 06:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sky is a bit noisy on the right side; can you do anything about that? Sharpness is also a bit marginal, but I think it's good enough, given the file size. -- Ikan Kekek 10:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC) ✓ Done --Scotch Mist 15:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Great improvement! Good enough quality IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 06:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Riga_Landmarks_51.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Latvia Race Cyclists passing close to Riga Dome Cathedral --Scotch Mist 05:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 10:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too dark shadows. The cyclists are cropped at the bottom. The fence in the foreground is distracting. --Augustgeyler 16:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The church tower is good in focus, but the cyclists not, also contrast reducement would have been better --Michielverbeek 07:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment The cyclists are 'not' cropped but with the bright jerseys highly visible against the black shorts\bikes my own opinion was that it was better for good composition 'not' to include more road\barrier beneath the bikes in order to more readily move the viewers eyes from the cyclists to the 'dome' (via the fluttering Latvian flags) - both the three cyclists and the cathedral tower were intended to be prominent in the photograph - Scotch Mist 11:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The cyclists are quite soft - f/11 may not have been the best setting here. Also, the fence in the foreground is a bit disturbing, and the file name is not accurate enough.--Peulle 12:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 01:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Even though the file name hints toward the intended focus towards the landmarks of Riga, the fence and blurry cyclists do not promote this attempt. a frame without these 'distractions' would have suited the course better in my opinion --Virtual-Pano 22:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I feel like probably none of this photo is quite sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 10:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined XRay 10:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

File:2020_Krzywa_Wieża_w_Ząbkowicach_Śląskich_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tower in Ząbkowice Śląskie 1 --Jacek Halicki 07:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Question Jacek, does it make sense to nominate three almost identical pictures? --Palauenc05 07:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think we should promote nearly identical images --Podzemnik 03:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Palauenc05 and Podzemnik, but should we promote this shot instead of variant 3? I think the composition is a bit cleaner. --Lion-hearted85 13:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree, here we've got a better composition. --Halavar 14:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, and correct me if I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing how opposing on the basis that it's very similar to another photo is legitimate under the QIC guidelines. Is there a guideline that could reasonably be interpreted that way? Which one? -- Ikan Kekek 10:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question Just a question in general: Is it OK to show number plates and other private data in such pictures? I usually blurred them in terms of data protection.--Augustgeyler 14:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 20:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Castillo_de_Kronburg,_Kronburg,_Alemania,_2019-06-21,_DD_94-97_PAN.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kronburg Castle, Kronburg, Germany --Poco a poco 06:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Looks overexposed to me --Podzemnik 03:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment A clear QI to me after some adjustments, please, let's talk --Poco a poco 20:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems quite acceptable to me, and of course very high resolution. Poco, you can't vote for your own nomination. I've struck out your vote. -- Ikan Kekek 09:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    It wasn't me who added the voting template...Poco a poco 12:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support very much sky, but technically well done and the architecture is shown very clear.--Augustgeyler 22:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, now. --Zinnmann 08:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 10:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)