Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 03 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:AltarNtraSradelRosario-PortoAlegreBrasil.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Altar of Our Lady of Rosary, Porto Alegre, Brazil --Ezarate 15:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment There is quite a lot of CA, noise and it needs perspective fix --Podzemnik 11:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Ezarate 00:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
      The left side seems to be vertical but the right side is not. Also, the colours seem to be oversaturated now and there is a dust spot on the left wall, isn't it? --Podzemnik 07:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC) See now Ezarate73 14:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I still don't see straight lines. Put the image into discussion below if you do see them --Podzemnik 17:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment I request for help on Graphics Lab, thanks!! Ezarate 22:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Graphics Lab says it is ok Ezarate73 22:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 10:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Anas_platyrhynchos_domesticus_Palo_Alto_May_2011_001.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Domestic duck, Palo Alto. --King of Hearts 06:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice!--Famberhorst 06:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfortunately the focus is not on the head --Charlesjsharp 11:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment More votes?--Famberhorst 17:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles. The focus is on the body, not on the head. --Basotxerri 20:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 10:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Turaco_unicolor_(Corythaixoides_concolor),_Santuario_de_Rinocerontes_Khama,_Botsuana,_2018-08-02,_DD_19.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Grey go-away-bird (Corythaixoides concolor), Khama Rhino Sanctuary, Botswana --Poco a poco 18:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 19:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not in focus --Charlesjsharp 11:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek 10:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose insufficient quality.--Fischer.H 13:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. There are many bird pictures of lower quality that have been accepted. --GerifalteDelSabana 22:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment upon closer inspection, the CA needs to be addressed first, Poco a poco! --GerifalteDelSabana 22:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 10:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Church_of_the_Transfiguration_in_Czerteż_(Чертеж).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Transfiguration in Czerteż (Чертеж), Poland --Pudelek 13:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Isn't it leaning right? --Podzemnik 07:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Also quite dark in the center --MB-one 09:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me, I'm not too bothered by the lighting as that side is naturally dark. If you look at the rightmost edge of the middle section of the building, it is perfectly straight; I think the wood planks at the top are not straight on the actual building. -- King of Hearts 03:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 10:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Autobahn_43,_ehemaliger_Notlandeplatz_--_2019_--_2732.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Former military airfield at Bundesautobahn 43 near Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 07:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Interesting view, but apart from the fixable perspective distortion this picture lacks sharpness. At least the camera brigde should have been sharp to catch my eyes - sorry. --PtrQs 14:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support For me an acceptable use of atmospheric perspective. --King of Hearts 05:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you for a good laugh! As the effects of atmospheric perspective arise from Rayleigh scattering, they are strictly connected with a color shift, of which I cannot see any. Btw: if this atmospheric perspective should be visible in such short distances, you should run for a respirator ... otherwise you become dizzy and loose your focus ;-) --PtrQs (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Perspective distortion ... Sorry, I can't find a distortion, but I tried to fix it.--XRay 07:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective is fine. --Ralf Roletschek 13:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me.--Ermell 19:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me too. Tournasol7 00:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK, now everyone has happily rebutted my weak argument about the distortion (wich were not so easily, if you had compared it with this [[1]] from the same user/time/station, which shows, that a german Autobahn is not constructud with such a lateral slope).

    But has anybody really checked my point of missing sharpness? --PtrQs (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 10:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)