Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 20 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Braunvieh_in_Bavaria_(3).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cow of the Braunvieh breed in Germany.--Peulle 09:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality--Armenak Margarian 09:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Taxa name is requested --Moroder
  • @Moroder: Bos taurus is already a supercategory.--Peulle 12:53, 16 October 2018
  •  Oppose Harsh lighting, lost detail on white, too strong shadow on head --George Chernilevsky 11:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Strong contrast but acceptable, IMO. I guess the species should be included in the file description, though. -- Ikan Kekek 15:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We don't do that with domesticated animals, such as dogs or cows, as far as I'm aware. At least I can't say I have ever seen that on Commons.--Peulle 07:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel certain I have, but if it's not considered a good practice, so be it. We all know what a cow is. -- Ikan Kekek 09:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   -- Adámoz 16:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Marienweiher Basilika 923185001 HDR1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of the pilgrimage basilica in Marienweiher --Ermell 06:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good Quality. -- Nirmal Dulal 08:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for discussion; I think we should take a closer look at this one. I don't think the sharpness is very good, and it looks like it's had a lot of work done in post. Let's see what others think.--Peulle 08:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support In the area of the rear windows, the perspective looks unnaturally distorted. But this is inevitable with this type of photo. I like the picture very much. -- Spurzem 10:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Peulle: looks like an overdone noise reduction. What happened here? --Carschten 12:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of detail, no QI for me --Uoaei1 05:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I still feel like it's struggling with a not too good start point and trying to make up for it in editing.--Peulle 07:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question - This version looks a lot better than the first one, which I never decided on in terms of QI, but was it actually as bright as the original, as dark as the current version, or if it was something in between, which version was it closest to? -- Ikan Kekek 09:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment The first version was an HDR of three images taken in the High Res mode of the camera. The second version is the brightest shot of the series only the windows are from the darkest version. With this series I actually missed an even brighter picture. Due to the perspective correction of the 7mm wide angle the photo unfortunately loses quality.--Ermell 20:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 12:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)