Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 13 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Masked_wagtail_near_Rishikesh_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Masked wagtail (Motacilla alba personata) near Rishikesh. --Satdeep Gill 10:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support This one really is at the border for me, even more than the last two, but I like the bird's expression. -- Ikan Kekek 13:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes are not sharp enough --Ermell 19:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Missing detail. Sorry. --A.Savin 03:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 04:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Gondelbahn_St_Ulrich_Urtijei_Furnes_in_Gröden_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Urtijëi-Furnes Gondola lift in Urtijëi, South Tyrol --Moroder 08:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Hmm, difficult. The sharp parts (despite the tress) on the lift are the rear cabin and mast. The main parts of the lift are blurry. That focus doesn't work for QI IMHO, sorry. --Carschten 16:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  SupportThe unsharp foreground does not spoil the compo IMO --Ermell 07:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think this is a viable artistic choice, and disagreement is in the realm of taste, not quality. -- Ikan Kekek 10:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me, the gondola is the main subject and I don't really think it's sharp enough in this photo.--Peulle 12:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Not bad IMO --A.Savin 03:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 04:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Kyrenia 01-2017 img06 view from castle bastion.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kyrenia: view from the castle towards the New Harbour --A.Savin 14:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Good light and sharpness, but please check the horizon; is there a slight tilt?--Peulle 15:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Sorry, but seriously?? This is really very minor --A.Savin 16:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Yes, approx. 0.3 degrees.--Peulle 18:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please other opinions. --A.Savin 20:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - For all I know, Peulle may be right, but to me, this is a pretty darn good picture that surely doesn't deserve to be declined. -- Ikan Kekek 23:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Just for the record, I did not decline it, I simply commented that the horizon is slightly tilted.--Peulle 09:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No 'decline' was recorded either. Taking pics a bit too soon to CR are we? I'll support this as soon as the tilted horizon is fixed. It's not much but it's there and it's easy to fix. Checking for tilted horizons is very easy to do. You simply open the photo in a separate window and drag it toward one of the screens edges, pan it back and forward and a tilt is detected at once. This trick can be used for verticals as well. --W.carter 22:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I know of course how to check the lines. Well, 0.3 degrees (or however much it is) is really very minor, especially when taking into account that the quality standards here are generally not as high as they probably should be and pictures with much more severe issues get promoted. What I have to say on this one: should someone find any other issue in this picture, e.g. a dust spot, I would then correct the horizon as well; but only because of that to edit the image, I find way too much. --A.Savin 04:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - I'm not really sure why the nominator would refuse to fix an issue that others have identified, but as mentioned, the technical quality is still well above average for QIs. If one more problem is all it takes to make it worth opening it up again in PS, maybe clone out that yellow thing floating in the water? ;) –Juliancolton | Talk 02:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 04:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)