Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 11 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Rhinoceros_Sculpture,_School_of_the_Museum_of_Fine_Arts,_Boston_-_DSC09370.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rhinoceros Sculpture, School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. By User:Daderot --Another Believer 04:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. But I would crop out a little bit at the left. no crop, sorry --XRay 06:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose - Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems overexposed on top. Probably fixable. User:Daderot, would you like to try lowering the brightness of the highlights somewhat? -- Ikan Kekek 09:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
     Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 09:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Dizengoff_Square_Tel_Aviv_Lowshot.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dizengoff Square. By User:אילן ארד --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline Why so small? Unless there's a good reason for the photo to be this small, I think it should be declined, as the picture, while of course an interesting motif, is not outstanding for its size. -- Ikan Kekek 09:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    But since when 2,556 × 1,830 (3.58 MB) is too small? --Andrew J.Kurbiko 10:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
     Comment - I feel like you've made this argument repeatedly, have you not? Just because a file is not below the absolute limit for QI consideration doesn't mean it's not overly small for 2019 for a particular motif, and the point is not only that this photo is small but that it's not very sharp. So again, I ask whether there's a very good reason for the photo to be this small. I think you can't answer that; only User:אילן ארד could. So I'll wait a bit for an answer, and if it's not forthcoming, expect a decline. -- Ikan Kekek 11:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    If you dont like playing by the rules you should consider changing them. This is a complex shot made from a high point (which is technically challenging). Additionally, it is dated 2012, which is before the ultra-high resolution era. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 13:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose - The rules say no photo under 2 MP can be a QI, not that all photos slightly larger than 2 MP have to be QIs. I did a little research about the standards in 2012. Here are some photos that passed at FPC in the first quarter of 2012: File:Novgorod - View on Yuriev Monastery from Volkhov 02.jpg, 3,371 × 2,255 pixels; File:Villa Ephrussi de Rothschild BW 2011-06-10 11-42-29a.jpg, 3,592 × 2,176 pixels; File:Quito as from panecillo Basilica.jpg, 4,170 × 2,583 pixels; File:Jerusalem Mount of Olives BW 2010-09-20 07-57-31.JPG, 3,872 × 2,592 pixels; File:Šmarjetna gora 03.jpg, 3,789 × 2,540 pixels. By all means, make your argument that a not very sharp 2,556 × 1,830-pixel file was standard for QIC in 2012 and we should therefore promote it now in CR. Of course QIC is different from FPC, but I think that even in 2012, a little more sharpness may have been desired. I will send this directly there and save you the trouble. -- Ikan Kekek 13:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
     Comment The size is OK for me. I'd support it if there was desription in English. --Palauenc05 17:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC).
     Comment Have added an English description to the image. The camera used is capable of a much higher resolution which would also add better color depth in this image. --GRDN711 19:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downsized. --Peulle 11:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Palauenc05 08:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC).
  •  Oppose I would support if a higher resolution image was uploaded. --GRDN711 20:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 02:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Plaza_del_ayuntamiento,_Kiel,_Alemania,_2019-09-10,_DD_54-95_HDR_PAN.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Town hall square, Kiel, GermanyT --Poco a poco 17:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Very impressive work! I have found two stiching errors and a row of green dots (dead pixels?) in the sky, and have marked them with image notes. No offence, I just want to help to make the photo even better ;–). --Aristeas 08:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Poco a poco 11:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you very much! --Aristeas 10:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose several stitching errors (see example annotations), dead pixels, colour noise; different sharpness of the single frames (or some are blurry). Doesn't seem fixable to me. --Carschten 15:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you Carschten, your all those annotations. I'll fix the stitching problems but I am not sure about your statetement that some frames are blurry. Which ones? they all were of course taken with a tripod and the look good to me. Poco a poco 08:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still some stitching errors at the top of the theater building at the right side. And a lot of hot pixels are visible as well..--Ermell 10:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Solved and very good now.--Ermell 08:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've fixed the stitching issues (and didn't mean above that I had done it before) FYI Ermell, Carschten Poco a poco 21:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Poco, you need to state what kind of projection you used for this photo. Apparently, the buildings don't really curve like that, so not admitting up front that you're distorting them isn't really, shall we say, sufficiently informative. -- Ikan Kekek 06:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    Ikan Kekek: I've added in the description that it's a cylindric projection panorama, but, to be honest, I think that there are more viewers who will know that the building is not curved that those that know what kind of distortion you can expect of a cylindric projection. Poco a poco 18:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support, good quality and sufficient information. While you may be right, people can look up "cylindric projection" if they like. Curved buildings do exist, and I could easily imagine a strange space that actually looks like this, though the buildings in question would presumably be of more recent construction. -- Ikan Kekek 21:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Adrian_Horridge_FRS_on_his_90th_birthday.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Portrait of George Adrian Horridge FRS on his 90th birthday, in his garden at Yarralumla, Canberra:. By User:Thennicke --Tomer T 14:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Sorry! The face is not sharp. --Steindy 15:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
     Support Face is perfectly sharp for that of a 90-year old man. QI for me. Rodhullandemu 19:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I don't understand how his age is relevant. Not quite sharp enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 06:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support The photo is a bit noisy but in my opinion sharp enough for QI. And why should the age of the gentleman with the short trousers not be mentioned? -- Spurzem 11:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • His age should be mentioned, but it's not relevant to how sharp his face is in the photo. That's my point. -- Ikan Kekek 20:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem --Smial 16:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem --Ralf Roletschek 17:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose techncial quality Charlesjsharp 10:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft. Alvesgaspar 21:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Spurzem --Michielverbeek 07:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Spurzem --Palauenc05 09:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)