Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 31 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Plavečský_hrad2,_Plaveč.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plavečský hrad, v katastrálnom území obce Plaveč, okres Stará Ľubovňa. Prvé zmienky sú z roku 1294. V roku 1856 hrad vyhorel a odvtedy postupne chátral. Od roku 2014 prebiehoa jeho postupná konzervácia a obnova. By User:Salamon.henrich --Мирослав Видрак 08:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Heavy lens flares on the left side and lens coma right of the tower. --Code 16:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It may not be possible to avoid that flare on the left, since there's a strong lamp there, but I see green CA all around the stars.--Peulle 07:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. Poor quality IMO--Lmbuga 20:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose FAKE SKY! There is no way the Large Magellanic Cloud to be seen from Slovakia. --C messier 08:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 Comment it is also rather difficult to get pinsharp stars with f/5 and ISO100 and at the same time pinsharp foreground. Either a tripod is used, then the stars will be lines, or an equatorial mount, then the buildings will be blurred. -- Smial 01:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 14:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Svyatoj_Klary_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St Clair Catolic Church in Horodkivka. By User:Balkhovitin --Ahonc 21:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice one! --Shishir 3:19 23 October (UTC)
  •  Oppose A black spot to be removed and needs better categories. --C messier 11:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. Colour saturation way too high, massive sharpening artifacts, tone mapping overdone. --Smial 08:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as SmialUnsigned: someone please claim this vote
  •  Oppose per Smial --Basotxerri 16:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Saturation is on the high side but acceptable to me. --King of ♠ 06:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - It's a bit overprocessed yes, but otherwise everything seems fine apart from categorisation. It's fine for QI. Mattbuck 20:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Coolors are strong but OK somehow. --PetarM 07:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed --Ralf Roletschek 09:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It does look a bit overprocessed, I have to admit. It looks like there are artefacts on the roof edges too. Also, categories missing. Landing on a weak oppose vote.--Peulle 10:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Smial and others --Lmbuga 20:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Waterwerken bij centrale Malga Mare. Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago del Careser 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Waterworks in power station Malga Mare. Mountain hiking of parking in power station Malga Mare to Lago del Careser.--Famberhorst 05:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose A quality photo, but unfortunately the main part (the fallen water) is not sharp enough. A shorter exposure time would have given a better image --Michielverbeek 06:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment In my opinion, a fotographer is not using automatic, he decide the tools. Here time is too short, not to long.

Fallen water sharpness is not the goal here. I like the colours! --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 10:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

  •  Support Without prejudice to your advice, this image as it stands seems fine for QI to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 11:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Given that there is a bit of noise and parts are not quite sharp, I second the oppose by Michielverbeek. --Peulle 16:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Somewhat reddish WB. Noise is regarding the rather high resolution acceptable. We all know (or should...) the "M" is not rocket science in matters of noise, the photographer did nothing wrong. Extensive noise reduction would have the risk of blurring. Better good sharpness, where sharpness is needed. Falling water can be depicted "frozen" with very short exposure time (or flash), it can be depicted totally "floating" with very long exposure time (ND filter, if necessary), and it can be depicted with some blur with middle exposure time to express the moving. That is a matter of taste. Matter of taste belongs to FPC, I believe. I myself would have chosen even a somewhat longer time, perhaps 1/15s or 1/30s to get a bit more blur. -- Smial 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment People, when you change the vote count at the bottom, please add your own signature there as well. Don't just let the previous signature stand.--Peulle 13:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I never knew we were supposed to do that. -- Ikan Kekek 20:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • +1 --Smial 22:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Are we truly supposed to do that? I've noticed that quite a few times, the QICtotal templates are signed by non-voters, and they eventually turn into "Promoted" or "Declined", I think without further effort by the signer? -- Ikan Kekek 03:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the idea is that whenever we do something, we should sign it. That includes editing the "results" line, so we can see when it was done. If an old signature is left at the bottom, it will look like votes have been added after the summary. Oh and in order to execute the decision of the vote (if more than 48 hours have passed since the last vote), simply change "QICtotal" to "QICresult" and change "Discuss" to "Promote" or "Decline". :) --Peulle 12:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Blurring the water at 1/50s is a valid artistic choice. We may disagree with it and prefer a longer or shorter exposure, but save that for FPC. --King of Hearts 06:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Haeferl 22:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others--Lmbuga 20:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 14:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Tsughrughasheni church.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Tsughrughasheni church -- Beqabai 17:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Sorry, 1/640 and f/3.2--Lmbuga 18:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. I think we should rate the picture and not the exif data and this photograph is QI for me --Ermell 18:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem:  Neutral, but random picture. Clear not QI IMO. I'm not willing to discuss, but "discuss" is a good option--Lmbuga 19:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question What do you mean by "random picture"? By the way, I may abstain from voting on this. The picture of the church seems OK to me, but I'm inordinately bothered by the unsharp area of trees in the middle of the foreground. I'm not sure that's a sufficient reason to oppose, though. -- Ikan Kekek 05:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry Ikan, poor English. Good composition, but taked without addressing the camera settings--Lmbuga 14:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC) See note, please--Lmbuga 14:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry Beqabai, It's not a random picture. --Lmbuga 14:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Pretty difficult for me to decide who is supporting and who is declining it. Please be more accurate! --Hubertl 21:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lower left is completely unsharp, and the culprit seems to be the f/3.2 + overaggressive NR. --King of Hearts 18:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted (or is it the perspective?), slight purple CA on tower, missing category. Could be fixable, but voting to oppose until remedied.--Peulle 16:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • A weak  Support taking into account some slight problems. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry. IMO this picture is not QI, but... --Lmbuga 20:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. Poor detail IMO--Lmbuga 01:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 14:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)