Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 12 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Área_de_Proteção_Ambiental_da_Baleia_Franca_Claudio_Seelig_(08).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Área de Proteção Ambiental da Baleia Franca By User:Ctseelig --Rodrigo.Argenton 13:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, but an english description would be helpful.--Tesla 13:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are strange artefacts of editing in the surf of the water. First I thought its algae. But the contours are too sharp independent from the blur of the surrounding areas. Otherwise it's a beautiful picture with great light and composition. --Tsui 22:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, the waves are strange. Obviously some filter etc. has been applied and damaged the photo. @Ctseelig: : Could you have a look and re-process your (beautiful!) photo? IMHO it is worth the additional effort. --Aristeas 08:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Oh yes! Could you please re-process this image to solve the mask / filter issue at the waves? --Augustgeyler 13:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Раменье.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Троицкая церковь: Раменье, Кумёнский район, Кировская областьЭто фотография памятника культурного наследия России c номеромЯ, владелец авторских прав на это произведение, добровольно публикую его на условиях следующей лицензии:Это изображение было загружено в рамках соревнования Вики любит памятники — 2020. --Ele-chudinovsk 09:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Stimoroll 09:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I disagree: there are chromatic aberrations, church is slightly tilted to the right. Both fixable. --A.Savin 13:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin. CA is very evident in the doorways of the outbuilding on the left. -- Ikan Kekek 08:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Augustgeyler 13:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Спасский_собор3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Спасский собор с двумя палатками на паперти: улица Казанская, 50, Киров, Кировская областьЭто фотография памятника культурного наследия России c номеромЯ, владелец авторских прав на это произведение, добровольно публикую его на условиях следующей лицензии:Это изображение было загружено в рамках соревнования Вики любит памятники — 2020. --Ele-chudinovsk 09:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Stimoroll 09:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: perspective and chromatic aberrations need to be taken care of. --A.Savin 13:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A.Savin. Also somewhat overexposed. --Smial 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Архангельская_церковь,_Вятские_Поляны2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Архангельская церковь: у городского кладбища, Вятские Поляны, Кировская областьЭто фотография памятника культурного наследия России c номеромЯ, владелец авторских прав на это произведение, добровольно публикую его на условиях следующей лицензии:Это изображение было загружено в рамках соревнования Вики любит памятники — 2020. --Ele-chudinovsk 09:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Good quality, but an english description would be helpful.--Tesla 13:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a QI for me. The picture is very noisy and unfocused. --A.Savin 13:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek 08:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would accept the noise level, but there is CA everywhere, the image is oversaturated, and sharpness is below standard. I think f/3.2 was not a really good choice. --Smial 12:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition but I am with Smial. --Augustgeyler 13:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment with noise reduction, sharpening and removing CAs, it could be a QI, but not now. Also an english description would be helpful.--Tesla 10:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Wind_Mill_Skansen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wind Mill (Skansen Open Air Museum, Stockholm, Sweden) --Chme82 20:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Could use perspective adjustment --Rhododendrites 21:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version with corrected perspective uploaded. Thank you for your notice. Chme82 19:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment The trees on the right are blur unfortunately @Chme82: --Vincent60030 09:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've just tried some sharpening. What is your opinion now? Chme82 19:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Thank you for the edit. However, I'm rather on the fence on this (neutral). I would love to take this into discussion. --Vincent60030 17:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support well composed, nice perspective, good focus throughoit- looks like a QI to me. --Virtual-Pano 21:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose For me it is very well done photo. Only the super tight crop at the bottom leading me to a weak oppose. --Augustgeyler (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality - very good except on the right. -- Ikan Kekek 08:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 13:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Roma_kloster_(station)_September_2020_06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Roma kungsgårds station. --ArildV 09:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 10:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Pink CAs on the trees (see the note). --Halavar 10:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment For me, it's not too visible. So let's discuss this. --Augustgeyler 14:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done new version uploaded.--ArildV 14:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better:) Good quality now. --Halavar 16:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice picture! No signs of CA now, thank you for fixing it. --Lion-hearted85 21:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Lovely picture. Crep171166 15:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 16:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Märzstraße_90_Wien_2020-04-05_e_Maskaron.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Early 20th century façade in Vienna. --Tsui 21:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Aristeas 08:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As this image is showing both reliefs, I have to oppose becaus the upper one is cropped. --Augustgeyler 10:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 06:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler Sebring12Hrs (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC).
  • @Tsui: Could you have a look? I still think your photo is OK for QI, but the crop at the top is indeed unfortunate. Cropping the complete upper ornament would remove that problem and would give the photo a clearer composition. Maybe you want to try that? Best, --Aristeas 09:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Aristeas: Thank you for the invitiation! But I'd rather leave it as it is. The foremost reason for pictures here is to be documentary. Even if some pixels/centimeters at the top may be missing, it still gives an impression of the decoration of the windows. QI would be nice, but it's not why I put pictures on Commons. --Tsui (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
      • @Tsui: Thank you for your answer! I have the highest respect for your reasons. --Aristeas 12:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Carlos_Borromeo,_Viena,_Austria,_2020-01-31,_DD_46.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination St. Charles Church, Vienna, Austria --Poco a poco 09:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the upper middle part is unsharp. --Augustgeyler 11:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Please, let's talk, with a few improvements I believe this is QI --Poco a poco 19:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  weak support I like the lighting around the painting and how the shot is composed. It's true that the upper part is less sharp, but the painting is almost entirely good. Regarding the vertical lines, they seem correct on the right, but the horizontal ones (the bottom of the painting and the pulpit) are not perfectly straight. Maybe you are able to find a better compromise with a guided perspective correction? If you have some room on the left, a wider crop would also be very nice (so that the vase is not cut out). Thank you--User:Lion-hearted85 00:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The angels in the upper part are blurred. In addition, the subject could be better centered. The altar steps are also slightly crooked, higher on the left than on the right. -- Spurzem 12:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Spurzem Stop targetting my pictures, otherwise I'll do the same. Poco a poco 19:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Dear Poco a poco, this is unfair. Nobody is targetting others pictures, at least nobody should do that. On the other hand everybody should be free to review others images without being afraid of getting "targeted" by the nominator. --Augustgeyler 08:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: Factual evaluations have nothing to do with "targetting". Besides, you don't need to threaten me. I will no longer present any pictures here that you can "attack". -- Spurzem 14:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Facts? No problem, here you are: from the last 65 images I've proposed to QIC 54 have been promoted, 3 are still open, 1 is on the way to CR (just declined by August) and 5 have been declined and are under discussion in CR. The 5 images declined and in CR right now come from 1 reviewer, guess who. Mr. Spurzem.
No problem, I can change the perspective. Mr Spurzem has promoted 15 images in October and declined 6 (ok, declined formally 5 and one with a comment). Any guess who is the author of those 6 images declined? Me.
Mr. Spurzem, if you don't have to courage to admit what you do, your problem, but please, don't insult me, and never forget that big brother documents everything in the page history.
Yes, I already read last week that you are not proposing anymore images to QC as a result of the fight you had 1 week ago with other users, this week it was me, let's see with whom you fight then next week. As said, your behavour is toxic and I just proved it. And I'd rather not spend a word in the quality of your reviews. Your criteria is just one: friend author or not? Poco a poco 18:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Dear Poco, it is possible this is just a co-incidence, isn't it? I hope Spurzem and all the others are here to review images to improve the wikimedia project an nothing else. For example this case here: If Spurzem would act just to make something "toxic", how could others follow his arguments? Different other reviewers supported his point of view or made, like Scotch Mist did, suggestions how to improve this image. --Augustgeyler 22:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
That's innoncent and sweet from somebody who hasn't been around for too long. After you see the behaviour of some people for years you'll see things differently. And you know as I do that there is always room for improvement for all pictures in QIC, for all. So, if you want to move to CR, you will always find a reason. Even if you find none some people believe that they have the liberty to decline because the sky wasn't blue... Specially a user like this with the lowest bar for QI as reviewer you can think of. Poco a poco 08:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Poco a poco: Cropping to the immediate frame of the painting and the bases of the bottom sculptures should overcome most opposing comments expressed above --Scotch Mist 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your hint, Scotch Mist, I believe though that this image as it's (at least in the current version) a QI and I wouldn't make such a radical change. Poco a poco 08:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 08:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Monumento_a_María_Teresa,_Viena,_Austria,_2020-01-31,_DD_28.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Empress Maria Theresia monument, Vienna, Austria --Poco a poco 10:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose very sharp and technically ok, lighting not good and cropping to hard at the lower part of monument. --Augustgeyler 20:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks like a QI to me, please, take a veridict, promote or decline --Poco a poco 18:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree; sharpness is good and perspective acceptable given the distance and angle of the photographer's point of view. Assuming oppose and sending to CR. --Peulle 11:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 07:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. The sun is not always shining … --Aristeas 09:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose. Indeed, the sun doesn't always shine and you can't get a quality picture all the time. In addition, the image is cropped too tight on the left and right. Finally I have to ask: Can the nominator now also vote here himself? -- Spurzem 12:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the vote of the nominator was accidentally added while transferring this to Consensual Review. I corrected it. --Augustgeyler 13:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem. --Kallerna 20:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Certainly the cropping is tight at the bottom corners but the primary sculptures are in full view and appear in good detail (if somewhat dark overall due to apparent cloudy weather) - if the partial relatively small sculptures in the bottom corners had been 'blurred' I think this would still be a QI --Scotch Mist 10:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The horizontal lines are slightly inclined CW. The vertical lines are leaning backwards. As this is a crop of 50 MP image, perspective should be correctable. Otherwise, quality is good. --Tagooty 01:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    I improved it Tagooty, you are being demanding Poco a poco 08:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Ermell 21:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI, very sharp. Sky is not so important here --Tesla 10:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 13:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)