Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 16 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Río_San_Lorenzo,_Montreal,_Canadá,_2017-08-11,_DD_13.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Lawrence River, Montreal, Canada --Poco a poco 19:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Das Foto zeigt im Farbverlauf Mängel in der Helligkeit. Selbst mit Gimp kann man das leicht beheben. Nightflyer 22:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ New version Poco a poco 11:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - The photo is OK, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 09:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now. --Aristeas 10:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Burgkunstadt_St._Heinrich_und_Kunigunde_106266801-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Altar in the church St. Heinrich and Kunigunde in Burgkunstadt --Ermell 07:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 9:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Sorry, but on the christmas trees we can see the strong halos... --Tournasol7 23:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment✓ Done Wrong file uploaded. New version should be better. Thanks for your review.--Ermell 22:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you very much. Now I can support. Btw nice image. Tournasol7 00:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 09:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support – Very good now! --Aristeas 10:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Iguana_iguana_on_Sanibel_Island.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination A green iguana, Iguana iguana, at the shore of a pond at Periwinkle Park on Sanibel Island, Florida. --Grendelkhan 21:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Musicaline 09:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. too soft for me --Charlesjsharp 14:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good enough except for the tail, IMO, so I find it OK. -- Ikan Kekek 09:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support head and body of the animal are sharp. --Palauenc05 18:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Vihorlat_(v_zime)_041.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Vihorlat, Vihorlatské vrchy --Milan Bališin 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Comment
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice, but imo it needs more contrast --Moroder 10:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Does it seem to me less contrast? --Milan Bališin 16:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok for me and the labels makes it instruktive.--Milseburg 10:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree @Milseburg: Please try to apply the same criteria on all candidates --Moroder 15:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Below the peaks is the cloud, fog... The contrast does not seem to be reduced. --Milan Bališin 20:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Moroder. The image needs midtone contrast or clarity. I would remove a bit of the sky, too. @Milan Bališin: It looks like you shoot JPEG out of camera. If this is the case, I really suggest to shoot RAW and develop the images yourself. --Basotxerri 16:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a beautiful landscape, but no QI for me.--Fischer.H 10:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

File:View_south_to_Lion's_Head_from_Signal_Hill.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lion's Head from Signal Hill summit, Cape Town --Daniel Case 01:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 01:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Really, I do not want to make any trouble. But this image suffers from the same problems as the others from this series. (Spots in the sky, loss of detail on earth, over-sharpened edge between earth and sky.) --Johannes Robalotoff 14:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs CCW rotation (watch the partly hidden buildings, all are leaning to the right, not only the trees). Dust spots. --Smial 11:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Since I haven't withdrawn this one, I would ask that you look at the new version which I started anew from scratch. I cropped out the leaning houses (I think) and got rid of the spots. Daniel Case 06:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Almost. Look at the upper left corner. -- Ikan Kekek 10:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
How about now? Daniel Case 05:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, still leaning, and the sky now looks completely artificial. --Smial 09:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Looks OK to me. I don't assume the trees might not lean like that from wind or something. I could be missing something - yeah, maybe there's a leaning house, but I find it really hard to see reliably. -- Ikan Kekek 08:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Info Neue Version drübergeladen. Bei Nichtgefallen einfach zurücksetzen. Gruss --Nightflyer 22:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nightflyer: - Daniel ist unterwegs, wird demnach dauern. Ich finde Deine Version recht gut, richtig gut, bis auf die Kanten, die mich aber schon immer gestört haben. Den Shift-Drift beurteile ich erst wenn ich ein lesbares RAW dazu habe, Nur, wie hast Du das gemacht (aus dem jpeg)? wäre dann etwas hochskaliert, was ja auch nicht erlaubt ist. Sei´s drum, Daniel muss auch erst mal hier nacharbeiten. Etliches zu tun für ihn ;-)--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 09:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For Smial,sorry --Paris Orlando 13:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Bisket_Jatra_festival_2018_at_the_Nyatapola_temple,_Bhaktapur.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The people are watching the festival biskaa jatra at the Nyatapola (Natapol Dutra) temple, Bhaktapur, Nepal. --Nirmal Dulal 08:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Needs better filename and categories. Also, quite noisy. --MB-one 11:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have improved the categories (as a little help). --Aristeas 11:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Good enough for me now, but more opinions welcome. --Kritzolina 12:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have renamed the file to a descriptive name. Good enough for me, too; IMHO the noise level is not irritating. More opinions? --Aristeas 12:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Impressive Imageǃ Imo not a QI Nothing about Noise (dark tones) and cats, but it need perspective & lens correction, litte bit d&b and better contrast. 18mm is strong WA, still at ASP-C sensor format, but this froggy view is too much (check out verticals, windows from left to right).If you overhand a DNG-File, I will try to improve it. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 00:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Because this photo won the 1st prize of WLM 2018 in Nepal, and the 6th international prize, and both not without reason, this image should not end as an “unassessed quality image candidate” ;–). Therefore I change this to /Discuss. --Aristeas 10:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - I don't think "It won WLM in Nepal" is a good reason to support this file at QIC. However, I think the noise (and sharpness) is not really a problem at 300% of my 13-inch laptop screen, only at full size. Therefore, I think it's good enough for QI. However, I'd love to see some improvements. -- Ikan Kekek 08:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
     Comment You are right, “It won WLM in x” does not mean that an image is an QI ;–). What I wanted to say was that an image which won in such a contest should not end as an “unassessed quality image candidate” — IMHO it deserves at least a discussion whether it is an QI (or how it could become one) or not. And I have added a “support”, because like you I think that noise (and sharpness) are not really a problem. --Aristeas 09:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • But Hans-Jürgen did assess it before you and I did. -- Ikan Kekek 13:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oops, you are right again … I have missed that between the other voices which were pro/con without using explicit support/oppose votes. Sorry if I have broken any QI rules! However, I hope it is OK to have opened a discussion. --Aristeas 16:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I have pointed the photographer of the image to this discussion, maybe he has missed it he has probably not noticed this discussion (and all our hints) yet as the image was nominated by another user. Just wanting to help, --Aristeas (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Smial 18:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. Daniel Case 21:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs a perspective correction (see side buildings), I would support it then --Trougnouf 15:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Grainy, oversharpened, CAs, perspective correction needed. --Basotxerri 19:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm fine with no perspective correction; this is not a standard architectural shot, and is meant to show the viewer shat it's like to be there. -- King of Hearts 00:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Why wouldn't the perspective correction apply? It's an impressive shot but it features distorted architecture nonetheless and correcting it wouldn't hurt the composition. --Trougnouf 15:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy and quality is low. Nice image! --Shansov.net 16:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)