Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 19 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Hertha_BSC_vs._West_Ham_United_20190731_(088).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jordan Torunarigha, player of Hertha BSC Berlin. --Steindy 00:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Insufficient quality IMO. --Satdeep Gill 03:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  SupportI disagree. --Ermell 07:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose probably downscaled from a 20 MPix camera, but still blurry. Oversharpening didn't fix the issue. --Smial 16:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Why am I not surprised by your vote? Have not you puked enough yet? Smial, above, there are a few pictures that you can pull through the dirt. --Steindy 17:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is beginning to look like a case for COM:ANU.--Peulle 06:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't expect any help from com:anu. Steindy's discussion style is well known. I will continue to try to comment on pictures as objectively as I am able to. --Smial 08:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
You probably mean your style of discussion, which I was allowed to get to know unpleasant years ago. You seem to like being in a bad mood for my candidacies. You want to talk about objectivity? I have never read a positive comment from you, only negative ones. But your statement above is a purely personal attack, but that does not seem to make you aware. I'm fed up with your know-it-all comments. Just stay away from me!!! I do not value your reviews and do not need advice from you. --Steindy 11:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:2018-10-22_TV,_ARD,_Cast_-Rote_Rosen-_Staffel_16_IMG_1935_LR10_by_Stepro.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination TV, ARD, cast "Rote Rosen" season 16; Lara-Isabelle Rentinck --Stepro 06:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Focus is on the shoulder not on the face. --Ermell 07:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I concur. This is not sharp enough for a head shot.--Peulle 11:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
[edit]

  • Nomination The Augustusplatz in Leipzig; View towards the Gewandhaus. by Ichwarsnur
  • Decline
  •  Support Quite noisy, but I guess that's because of ND filter use so hard to avoid for long exposure during the day. And I like it :) --Podzemnik 03:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. too noisy for me and the clouds look somewhat distorted. --Milseburg 12:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Definitely too noisy Poco a poco 08:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 11:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Automeile_auf_dem_Kartoffelmarkt,_Ford_Mustang_--_2019_--_9897.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ford Mustang at the car exhibition on the potato market in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The background is too distracting. --Bobulous 18:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. It's sharp enough and the background is typical for this kind of event. --XRay 09:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine to me, I expect this kind of background in a street pic Poco a poco 08:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support as XRay and Poco --Stepro 11:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Poco. -- Smial 18:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  weak support since I think it's mostly OK, but the composition could be improved by getting lower, showing more ground and less sky.--Peulle 11:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Church_of_the_Saint-Michel_Priory_of_Grandmont_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of the church of the Saint-Michel Priory of Grandmont, Hérault, France. --Tournasol7 06:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Composition contains too much effectively empty space. --Bobulous 18:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, but it's not a reason for decline. --Tournasol7 21:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support The space is not empty at all. The typical depth of Romanesque architecture is well depicted by the large stone floor, the walls and ceiling. --Palauenc05 06:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support This photo conforms QI standard. There is no any about 'space' there --Nino Verde (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. The empty space is the church room. --Aristeas 09:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I do recommend to crop a part of the floor to improve the composition but it is not mandatory Poco a poco 08:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support as Aristeas --Stepro 11:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Palauenc05. This church interior is simply empty. --Smial 10:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Tulln_Gartenbaumesse_Feuerwerk_20190831_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fireworks on the occasion of the horticultural fair 2019 in Tulln, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 03:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Does not capture the fireworks at maximum size, brightness, and color. --Senator2029 11:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Maximum brightness and color? Don't get it. Maximum size? The firewoks together with the reflections on the water surface which are obviously part of the composition fills nearly the whole frame. Maybe the composition is not really impressive, but I can't find severe technical issues. --Smial 07:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 12:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support great composition, good quality; it's a photo not a digital artwork --Stepro 11:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me; the firworks are in focus.--Peulle 11:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Dusky_Sunbird_Branch_2019-07-26.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dusky sunbird (cinnyris fuscus) near Halali in Etosha National Park Namibia --Axel Tschentscher 23:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline Frank Schulenburg 22:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
     Question @Frank: What was that vote? --Axel Tschentscher 19:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    Did you apply artificial blurring? The branch makes my head dizzy. --Muntashir.islam 18:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Was heavy JPEG compression used? The detail on the bird is very soft and noisy, despite a low ISO.--Bobulous (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough for me. The feathers on the neck and head seem particularly frayed. --Steindy 00:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is some chroma noise which can be repaired with a non blurring method. The focus is not absolutely perfect set to the head of that bird, but this is not an easy-to-take-image and overall sharpness is good enough for A4 print or more. But main issue is the too strong JPG compression, those artifacts can only be fixed by the uploader. I would support a version with jpg quality set to "best". --Smial 19:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Set jpeg to best quality. Thanks for the input. Also recomposed. --Axel (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Really great enhancement including the composition. --Smial 10:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Ambleteuse.-_Fort_Vauban_en2019_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fort Mahon in Ambleteuse (Pas-de-Calais) --Pierre André Leclercq 10:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. Tilt of horizon is too strong for a QI in my eyes. --Milseburg 14:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry I haven't seen it. Yes, Milseburg, you are right. --Steindy 17:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Steindy: It is repairable. So I do not recommend switching from promotion to decline right away. Reset both to Nomination or Discuss, so Pierre has more time to fix it. --Milseburg 18:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. --Steindy 20:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 Comment ✓ Done Tilt of horizon correction angle 0.5, thank you for tour advice.--Pierre André Leclercq 08:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Tilt seems ok now in my eyes. For promotion I miss overal a bit more sharpness and less noise in the sky. There is also a slight dust spot above the left end of the castle. --Milseburg 13:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done More sharpness and less noise in the sky. Removing a slight dust spot above the left end of the castle. thank you for your advice.--Pierre André Leclercq 15:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Seven Pandas 15:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)~
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 05:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Now okay. --Steindy 13:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Ambleteuse.-_Fort_Vauban_en2019_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fort Mahon in Ambleteuse (Pas-de-Calais) --Pierre André Leclercq 09:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Tilted ccw. --Milseburg 14:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry I haven't seen it. Yes, Milseburg, you are right. --Steindy 17:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. --Steindy 20:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 Comment ✓ Done Tilt of horizon correction angle 1.3, thank you for tour advice.--Pierre André Leclercq 08:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Horizon is ok now. Could be a bit sharper, but good enough for QI IMO. --Milseburg 14:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  SupportNow good quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 04:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Now okay. --Steindy 13:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -- George Chernilevsky 21:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)