Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 20 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Erwin_Schrödinger_(1887-1961),_Nr._112,_bust_(marble)_in_the_Arkadenhof_of_the_University_of_Vienna-2960.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961), bust (marble) in the Arkadenhof of the University of Vienna --Hubertl 21:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Text on the pedestal is cut off; should be included or cropped out entirely.--Peulle 21:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it is ok like this. --Hubertl 23:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Anticipating nominator's wish and sending to CR. My vote is to oppose, for composition reasons as stated above; the text is cut off. --Peulle 08:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The crop of the text is no issue for me --Uoaei1 05:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Why should the text on the pedestal be necessary? Of course it would not be bad if we could see the year of birth but the main subject is the bust. -- Spurzem 10:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, per Peule. Ganz oder gar nicht. --Milseburg 14:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Text- either have all of it or none of it, or have a clean break within the text. Great image, but the date cut off (IMO) doesn't look clean.--Godot13 17:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment as I said: It´s QI, even when some people want it different. First: straight, second: straight, third: straight. --Hubertl 20:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you mean by "straight", but for me, the issue is the composition; that part of the subject is cut off. If the text is removed entirely, the image's subject changes from being the bust with accompanying text to being just the bust. Especially since you had room to spare (top crop is wide enough to pan down). That's my opinion.--Peulle 10:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Peulle, the composition is quite disturbing for me, sorry --Moroder 14:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 04:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Valle de Pineta - Gato 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blue-eyed cat in the Pineta Valley. Sobrarbe, Aragón, Spain --Basotxerri 08:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. Crop must be better - with the whole cat. Disturbing background. --XRay 08:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
     Comment The crop of the cat is good (it is a portrait), but the background is really disturbing. --C messier 11:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
     Support honestly this is a good image --Christian Ferrer 20:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
     Support That's an adorable cat portrait. The face is very clear and the body is somewhat in bokeh, which is a legitimate choice. The background is what happened to be behind the cat. It's nothing close to a Featured Picture, but I don't find the background nearly disturbing enough to decline a promotion to QI for this picture. -- Ikan Kekek 05:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
     Oppose It`s only sharp but nothing else--Ermell 09:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only eyes are sharp. We can't expect more when a wide angle focal length is used close to the subject. Jkadavoor 07:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice cat but very bad background. It's a pity. -- Spurzem (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 04:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Opakua - Puerto de Opakua 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Summit of Opakua mountain pass. Álava, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 15:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose IMO the composition of this road panorama is excellent, but unfortunately it is too noisy for me and not sharp enough for Q1, sorry --Michielverbeek 20:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
     Support It seems pretty good to me. Lots of way less focused photos have been passed. -- Ikan Kekek 10:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
     Comment Thank you Ikan, just now I was going to pass this to CR. I can fully understand the reasons of Michielverbeek and I'm sure that this isn't my best picture but IMO this is still within the limits. Let's see what others think. --Basotxerri 16:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support In total, yes - a weak support vote from me; the resolution could be higher but the noise is not too much of a problem for me here.--Peulle 13:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 20:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Igreja_de_Nossa_Senhora_do_Rosário_dos_Homens_Pretos,_São_Paulo,_Brazil.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Igreja de Nossa Senhora do Rosário --The Photographer 14:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, but it is not good quality (spots and noises in the sky, traces from making panorama) --Rbrechko 09:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I think this could use some de-noising. The nearer dark spots look to me like birds or perhaps aircraft, but there are indeed some lighter dust spots to the left of the building with the satellite dishes (or whatever) on top of it. -- Ikan Kekek 06:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition and lighting, but: rather noisy, dust spots, buildings leaning out and important areas overexposed (color channel clipping). --Smial 07:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I was hoping The Photographer would have fixed the dust spots by now, but for now, I'm breaking the tie and opposing, pending fixes. -- Ikan Kekek 05:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 20:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:AT_-_101760_Lourdesgrotte_Falkenstein,_Niederösterreich_0840-HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lourdes grotto in Falkenstein, Lower Austria, Austria. By User:Kellergassen Niederösterreich 2016 --Hubertl 03:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry. IMO it's tilted CCW. --XRay 04:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I don´t think the image is realy tilted. Maybe there´s a slight distortion, but IMHO ok for QI. --Milseburg 21:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment it is really like this at this place, XRay. --Hubertl 05:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks you for your information. So I change my review. --XRay 06:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment but anyway, I reworked it! --Hubertl 06:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark IMO. Should be no problem to increase the brightness on a HDR exposure.--Ermell 09:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment it´s already lightened up, it´s extreme dark there... I don´t want to go too far from reality. --Hubertl 20:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Kitschy, but good quality --Uoaei1 05:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support, based on Hubertl's remarks about the nature of the place and the overall quality of the photo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 04:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Marité_(ship,_1923),_Sète_cf08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Marité (ship, 1923). Sète, Hérault, France. --Christian Ferrer 05:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Structure of the masts is obscured by the building behind --User:Hans G. Oberlack, 02:00 9 October 2016
  •  Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 20:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition quite unclear. The details of the ship are lost in the structure of the building. --Dirtsc 08:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support In a larger view, everything is clear. Jkadavoor 11:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark, main subject underexposed. + the building in background is too prominent (composition issue).--Jebulon 19:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I would give a pro, if you lighten up the image. The composition is ok for me, because it shows the situation as it is in a documentary way. --Hubertl 07:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Jebulon--Ermell 09:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 04:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)