Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 27 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_44.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 04:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Vertical bands in the sky. We really should find out what causes this...--Peulle 08:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment Sorry Peulle, I can not find any vertical band here. Do you really mean this photo? --Steindy 09:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Peulle is right, but in this case the stripes are so unobtrusive that I can tolerate them. -- Smial 16:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 12:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_51.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 16:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 17:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    Needs some cropping at the bottom. --Tsungam 07:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Done by me. --Steindy 22:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Steindy: Danke! Gruß--Manfred Kuzel 08:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 12:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

File:PricewaterhouseCoopers,_Christchurch,_New_Zealand.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination PricewaterhouseCoopers, Christchurch --Podzemnik 01:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chromatic noise to remove. --Steindy 22:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC) I think it's OK. It's a reflection of a darkish wall in the water, I don't know when to have a bit of noise on a picture than in cases like this. Podzemnik 22:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support In the real world there are no digital cameras without image noise. The designated area is also completely unimportant for the overall impression. If I want, I can find a place on /every/ photo where there is noise. Except for images that have been algorithmically overtreated... By far good enough for QI. --Smial 08:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very fine photo! -- Ikan Kekek 04:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 14:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just pinging Steindy so he doesn't miss this. --Podzemnik 21:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --A.Savin 11:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 12:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Plains_Zebra_Baby_2019-07-26.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Young Plains zebra (equus quagga) near Halali, Etosha National Park, Namibia. --Axel Tschentscher 18:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose - Sorry, IMO not sharp enough for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 03:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Disagree Plane with head and stones is sharp, as intended. -- Axel Tschentscher 16:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As an animal "portrait" sharp enough, but overesposed with lots of clipping areas. Don't rely on histograms, they don't really show such clipping in small image areas. --Smial 08:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Reprocessed to avoid clipping areas and extend sharp plane. --Axel 13:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - More details visible, now acceptable, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 06:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Now it appears somewhat oversharpended, but the exposure is much better and most of the clipping has gone. So I revoke my "oppose". --Smial 10:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 12:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

File:2019_Dwór_w_Służejowie_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Manor in Słuzejów 2 --Jacek Halicki 07:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Good quality, but I think it would be better without the upper leaves on the left side. --Steindy 12:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
     Support I disagree. Having dark green on both sides nicely frames the light tower in the middle and makes the whole image more alife. --Axel Tschentscher 15:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Some whites look blown to me, but I realize that may have to do with how I set my monitor. Could anyone confirm or refute this? -- Ikan Kekek 03:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
     Support I suspect there is something wrong with your monitor since several weeks ;-) --Moroder 21:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - If there's an issue, I think it's not with my monitor but with my settings. -- Ikan Kekek 05:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I got a thoroughly calibrated display. No whites are blown here. But the image has many areas with no details whatsoever, those patches are almost uniform in color and luminosity. Stoxastikos 17:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I stay with it. No good picture composition. I am disturbed by the leaves hanging out of nowhere. These are too dominant. --Steindy 14:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support o.k. for me.--Ermell 19:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support The leaves don't bother me. --Palauenc05 14:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. It looks bright but I would confirm, that there are no blown whites. Like Steindy, I do not like the leaves that much and I would have removed them. But imho it's not bad enough to decline it. -- DerFussi 22:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --DerFussi 22:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)