Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 13 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Salida_del_sol,_parque_nacional_Kruger,_Sudáfrica,_2018-07-26,_DD_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunrise, Kruger National Park, South Africa --Poco a poco 11:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 13:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Oversaturated, unsharp, blown highlights, too contrasted, and seems tilted --Basile Morin 05:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Basile Morin --Fischer.H 16:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 16:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Pisa_Baptistery_(39662099502).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Baptistery of Pisa --DnaX 15:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Fischer.H 18:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Needs perspective correction --Moroder 21:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • per Moroder --Trougnouf 23:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Moroder. A very atmospheric photo, congratulations!, but the perspective needs correction.
    And, in adddition, this photo was transferred from Flickr, right? The photographer is not a Wikimedian, right? So according to our QI rules, it cannot be a QI – sorry. --Aristeas 09:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Per se ineligible, per Aristeas. -- Ikan Kekek 10:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective, oversaturated colors, not a commoner -- Basile Morin 04:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Saint_Nicholas'_Church,_Ghent_(DSCF0236-hdr).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Nicholas church's East facade during civil twilight in Ghent --Trougnouf 02:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Could you please reduce the visible corrections around the weather vane? --PtrQs 02:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I reprocessed the picture very differently --Trougnouf 03:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Dark. Shot against light. Details lost in the shadows. --Basile Morin 04:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
See exposure : underexposed foreground -- Basile Morin 05:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think for it's sharpness and for avoiding any misplaced overprocessing this image deserves a discussion --PtrQs 00:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Previous discussions related to similar cases : 1, 2 -- Basile Morin 11:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 Support --PtrQs 09:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Nicely detailed, good shot at civil twilight. -- Ikan Kekek 07:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Having shot similar photos in the past, I remember that it is difficult to handle such situations which are twilight and contre-jour at the same time. In this situation we can not expect results which are perfect in every aspect. So, for me, this is quite a good image. --Aristeas 09:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Kjørbo_gård_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kjørbo manor from ca. 1805.--Peulle 17:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 17:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Sorry, but perspective problem (building not horizontal) and shadow facade lacks sharpness. --Jmh2o 19:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Perspective corrected - although please note that not all lines of the building are straight; it is very old and also was built on a slope.--Peulle 12:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Better, now good. --Jmh2o 18:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jmh2o. -- Ikan Kekek 00:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing. :) --Peulle 13:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The light comes from the wrong side. I would not have nominated this image. -- Spurzem 14:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I've reprocessed the image to lighten the frontage, etc. Smalljim 21:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 16:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Vihorlat_(v_zime)_036.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Vysoké Tatry from Vihorlat, distance ca. 140-160 km --Milan Bališin 15:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose There's a lot of wasted space in this image, the subject is kind of indistinct and that bit of foreground is distracting --Daniel Case 20:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. This is a very instructive, successful and authentic far distance shot. Some distances should be added to the notes. It reaches QI level in my eyes in it´s branch. --Milseburg 13:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Distances have been added to the notes. Yes, it is a real view of a far distant object, distance ca 140-160 km. --Milan Bališin 19:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - I like this one. The fact that it has a bit of foreground helps it. I find the other one problematic but won't participate in that discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 09:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Daniel Case --Fischer.H 15:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Daniel.--Peulle 01:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support interesting long distance view and very instructive--KaiBorgeest 20:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indisctinct -- Basile Morin 04:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)