Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 08 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Runder_Turm,_St._Goarshausen,_West_view_20150513_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The "Runder Turm" (round tower) in St. Goarshausen --DXR 10:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Verticals are straight, but it looks deformed. The upper part is wider than the bottom part. This is difficult to repair (barrel distortion?), but like this it is no QI for me. --Michielverbeek 11:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    Imho, the building is not straight - quite unlikely that it's the lens at 45mm --DXR 11:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    I think, this is ok. The tower is actually broader at the top. --Imehling 11:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    More opinions please --Michielverbeek 22:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    Answer: In old buildings, the perspective of the photo should never be aligned with them, but with neighboring new buildings because old buildings often have no horizontal and / or vertical edges. (You can see that on many of my photos of the cellar lanes). Therefore:
     Support Good quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 08:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support. It looks technically flawless, and the perspective correction is not as exaggerated as many other photos that have already been accepted here. --Smial 08:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

File:"Gwalior_Fort_situated_on_a_hill_.jpg".jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gwalior Fort. By User:Shaweez --RajashreeTalukdar 17:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Isn't tilted to the right? Can you provide meaningful description? I don't know what I'm looking at --Podzemnik 23:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
     Support I think it's fine. --Streetdeck 09:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose And I'd like to hear more opinions :) I think it's ovesaturated, file name is not very good, same as description --Podzemnik 06:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Podzemnik. Too noisy for QI, in my opinion, I indeed see the tilt, and the description should include the fact that you're looking at Gwalior Fort, though that's easily fixable. -- Ikan Kekek 05:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite soft, and is it oversaturated? Description also needs fixing. --Peulle 12:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 21:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Bus_Colibri_(Isuzu),_rue_de_la_Gare_(Saint-Maurice-de-Beynost)_en_septembre_2019_(2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bus Colibri (Isuzu), rue de la Gare (Saint-Maurice-de-Beynost) en septembre 2019. --Benoît Prieur 19:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 22:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
     OpposeToo tightly cropped on the right. Is there any more in the frame? --GRDN711 17:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    For discussion. --Steindy 10:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - To me, it's OK for there to be very little crop behind a moving bus and lead room in front of it. -- Ikan Kekek 05:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. A little more space on the right side would not have been bad, but nothing is cut off. --Smial 08:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Եկեղեցի_Սուրբ_Աստվածածին_«Կարմիր_վանք»_28092019_(18).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Holy Mother of God Church in Maralik, Shirak province, Armenia. User:Beko --Armenak Margarian 19:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Some dust spots in middle of the photo. --Streetdeck 09:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. Do you know the roof? I think this is the actual color of the older roof. --Steindy 11:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Spots have been removed.--Beko 15:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 10:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Sorry double. --Steindy 22:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 21:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Phalaenopsis_orchidee_(actm)_12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Phalaenopsis orchidee. Flowering houseplant in the Netherlands.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Too noisy --Poco a poco 07:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. Noise Reduction.--Agnes Monkelbaan 17:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
     Support QI now, good job! --Poco a poco 21:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support. Poco a poco, you are on record as both opposing and supporting. Please fix that. :-) -- Ikan Kekek 05:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    Actually I corrected the review to support, I am surprised that it was moved to CR Poco a poco 07:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice view, good quality. --Steindy 09:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 21:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Sint-Eucheriuskapel_Brustem_photo_by_Jules_Grandgagnage.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chapel of Saint Eucherius in Brustem, southern Limburg (Belgium). J.G.G. 14:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --RockyMasum 16:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree for now. Please correct the persepctive. Quite pixelated --Podzemnik 23:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Opposeper Podzemnik.--Peulle 12:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 21:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Chiesa_di_San_Bernardo_facciata_Serniga_Salò.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The San Bernardo church in Salò. --Moroder 09:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     CommentThe leaves in the foreground are very noisy (probably too much brightened). --Imehling 13:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
     Comment Imo it's irrelevant --Moroder 11:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC) OK, then let's discuss it. --Imehling 12:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
     Support For me it's QI. --Manfred Kuzel 04:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
     Support --Isiwal 07:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I wouldn't have compensated the contrasts so much and I would also do less sharpening, but overall the photo meets the quality criteria. --Smial 21:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
     Comment @Smial: Thanks for the support. I very rarely or never do any sharpening with my photos --Moroder 12:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very good to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 05:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

File:20190928_Maciej_Gdula_Marsz_Świeckości_w_Krakowie_1507_1233_DxO.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Maciej Gdula speaking at The March Of Secularity in Kraków --Jakubhal 07:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Matthias Süßen 11:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry! No good design of the photo. The hand with the microphone on the left side is too disturbing. --Steindy 22:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Steindy --Milseburg 12:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Hand and microphone don't disturb me --Moroder 15:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support stört mich auch nicht, das gehört bei solchen Szenen dazu. --Ralf Roletschek 20:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Moroder and Ralf. --Smial 22:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Mir wurden hier auch schon Fotos abgelehnt, weil Mikrofone im Bild waren. Bei Bühnenfotos... --Smial 22:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Meine zwei Cents dazu: bei Qualitätsbildern ist auch die Komposition wichtig. Ich habe ebenfalls dutzende Portraits hochgeladen, auf denen die Hintergründe von Ersatzbänken bei Sportveranstaltungen gruselig aussehen, wo Mikrofone ins Bild gehalten werden oder jemand knapp dahinter durchs Bild rennt. Das mindert nicht die Nützlichkeit dieser Bilder für die Artikelarbeit in der Wikipedia, aber dann sind das eben keine QIs. --Granada 09:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment, also, ich glaube, ich habe schon zwei- oder dreimal technisch einwandfreie Bilder allein wegen der Komposition abgelehnt, mithin in extremst seltenen F#llen. Das waren dann aber auch wirklich komplett unmotivierte Schnappschüsse. Ansonsten zählt Komposition für mich als nachrangiges Merkmal, eben weil hier nicht FP ist, sondern QIC. Allerdings spielt die Bildgestaltung dann eine Rolle, wenn ich bei besonders gelungen eingefangenen Situationen kleinere technische Mängel bewußt "übersehe", insbesondere bei schwierigen Aufnahmesituationen. Bei einem Studio-Portrait wäre das Mikro bei diesem QI-Kandidaten natürlich ein absolutes NoGo. Da würde ich auch spiegelnde Brillengläser oder ausgefressene Lichter auf fettglänzender Stirn als NoGo ansehen. Bei einem Sport- oder Bühnenfoto oder anderen Live-Situationenist das dann eben anders. --Smial 09:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
      •  Comment Schon klar, die Komposition sollte bei QI nur eine nachrangige Priorität haben. Wenn mich das Mikro in dem Foto oben wirklich stören würde, dann hätte ich das Foto negativ bewertet und keine weitere Erklärung dazu abgegeben. Ich wollte nur sagen, dass ich persönlich meine eigenen Fotos solcher Art gar nicht erst nominiere, ich erfreue mich daran, jemanden vor die Linse bekommen zu haben, der noch kein Foto im Artikel hatte, das zählt. Ich kann aber auch nicht meine eigenen mit solchen Fehlern behafteten Bilder nicht nominieren und dem oben ein Support geben, daher nur mein Kommentar dazu. Schade, dass wir uns noch nie persönlich begegnet sind, denn ich habe den Verdacht, dass wir da durchaus ungefähr einer Meinung sind, im Geschriebenen das aber nicht erkennbar wird. —Granada 16:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
        •  Comment I do not know why the microphone is referred to. That would be acceptable. First of all, the hand interferes. But the votes are sometimes very curious. --Steindy 21:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial and others. --Manfred Kuzel 16:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 05:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The hand on the left is too disturbing, IMO. --Peulle 12:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Grub_Kellergasse_Berggasse_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse „Berggasse" in Grub (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 03:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Building is obstructed by others on the right and left that could have been largely overcome by moving two feet to the right. --GRDN711 12:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Answer: If you could go 2 feet to the right in a narrow cellar lane, then I would certainly have done that. --Manfred Kuzel 08:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry Manfred. Strong sensor pattern. --Steindy 19:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Steindy. A shame to see so many otherwise nice images ruined by faulty equipment.--Peulle 09:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment Especially because this Kellergassen project is incredibly praiseworthy from a documentary point of view. A pity. Btw: I don't know Manfred's economic situation and don't want to get too close to anyone, but I had the idea of a fund raising if his camera wasn't repairable.--Smial 22:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Answer: Thanks Smial for your comment!
With the documentation of cellar lanes I would like to support the efforts of the association of cellar lane guides (to which I myself belong since the day before yesterday as a certified cellar lane guide), to include the cellar lanes in the UNESCO World Heritage.
My camera is since 24.9. in repair, which I can certainly pay for. Thank you for your kind offer! Friendly greetings --Manfred Kuzel 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. I'm glad your camera is being fixed! -- Ikan Kekek 05:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Nature_of_Ngorongoro_Conservation_Area_(64).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Zebra and her child. Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. --Zenith4237 00:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Please improve the categorization. Where was the photograph taken? What kind of animal? --XRay 05:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 17:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Species still missing. --XRay 07:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 19:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per XRay --GRDN711 03:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose just to stress the point that Quality Images should have a meaningful name and description. Some of us put a lot of work into this.--Peulle 09:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose XRay and Peulle are completely right: identifiction of the zebras is necessary, better description and categories needed. The image itself is good. --Carschten 18:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Hier sind Qualitätsbilder gefragt, nicht Qualitätskategorien oder Qualitätsbeschreibungen. --Ralf Roletschek 20:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Clear identification and categorization is part of the first QI requirement for nomination - "Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description." If this image is going to have a future in Commons, it needs this information. The one who knows it best is the original photographer who nominated it. --GRDN711 21:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per XRay --Armenak Margarian 17:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. --Manfred Kuzel 16:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, due to the requirement to name the species. -- Ikan Kekek 05:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)