Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 09 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Tarian_kidung_tengger.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kidung tengger dancers of East Java. --Rachmat04 10:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice compo and subject but too noisy, sorry --Poco a poco 12:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support The scene is captured excellently, the colors are very beautiful, but with ISO 1000 you can hardly avoid noise. For me, the photo is still a quality image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm going to reluctantly  Oppose. I love the subject and the noise is IMO borderline, but I don't like the right crop. -- Ikan Kekek 22:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The noise is too much for me.--Peulle 07:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have and use the same camera (Sony α7R II). Photographs taken with this camera at ISO 1000 are normally quite useful; so it should be possible to improve the noise reduction/sharpening of this photo to get a much better result. --Aristeas 09:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support per Spurzem. --Smial 09:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Carschten 12:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Ellerholzdamm,_Pallets,_WPAhoi,_Hamburg_(P1080334).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stacks of wooden pallets in the Port of Hamburg --MB-one 13:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Overexposed background. --Kallerna 13:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Kallerna: Thanks for the review. Uploaded a new exposure. --MB-one 13:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
     Support ok to me --Carschten 12:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Me too. -- Ikan Kekek 05:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Of course the very bright wall could be a bit darker. -- Spurzem 09:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Carschten 12:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Ellerholzhafen,_Stubbenhuk,_WPAhoi,_Hamburg_(P1080360).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tugboat Stubbenhuk in the Port of Hamburg --MB-one 13:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Distracting background. --Kallerna 13:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. --Ermell 22:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Not a FP, but technically ok, informative and no obvious flaws. --Smial 09:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial. --Aristeas 10:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Due to the colours of the background, it is even hard to distinguish where the boat starts or ends. The background is also really messy. Please check the guidelines. --Kallerna 12:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The upper part of the boat, the large ship in the background and the background right should be darker and the black background on the left should be lightened. To decline would be wrong for me, but a good image is it not. -- Spurzem 19:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I see Kallerna's point, but on the other hand any moored boat would have a similar problem and Commons need pictures of moored boats too. I don't think the background is too disturbing in this case.--Peulle 07:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Carschten 12:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Paris_Air_Show_2019,_Le_Bourget_(SIAE8836).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Boeing 787-9 of Air Tahiti Nui at Paris Air Show 2019 --MB-one 08:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 12:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question This is a documentation image of an airplane. Why clip the wings? --GRDN711 02:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @GRDN711: the focus is on the fuselage here. --MB-one 11:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting comment but IMHO not QI because the image would be even better if this plane had all of its wings. Let's see what others think. --GRDN711 03:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 Comment If we had all of the wings the image would be rather small. -- Spurzem 09:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. It's not flying therefor it doesn't need the wings ;-) --Moroder 11:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Somewhat too crowded, but acceptable. --Smial 13:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too busy. Kallerna 12:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Carschten 12:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

File:LIEMobil,_Schaan_(1Y7A2221).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bus route 13 Schaan-Eschen --MB-one 09:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose@Poco a poco: The big reflexes on the bus bother me and the top left corner of the picture would be too bright for QI. -- Spurzem 14:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the lack of information/clipping in highlight areas might warrant not being QI --17jiangz1 06:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @17jiangz1: Thanks for the review. Exposure is corrected to minimize clipping. --MB-one 09:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Sky is still pretty bright but IMO it's acceptable now in this picture that's primarily of the bus. -- Ikan Kekek 22:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Support - It's not perfect but after the correction seems acceptable as QI --17jiangz1 14:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Carschten 07:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Busy background. --Kallerna 12:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree that the composition doesn't isolate the subject enough, and that the backdrop (and the window reflection) is too distracting. --Bobulous 19:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition? Background? I don't get it. This is a bus at a bus stop, so in its natural habitat. After the technical improvement the picture is completely acceptable, even if a little more DOF would have been nice. --Smial 10:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Since it's an image of a bus, the compostition is IMO ok for QI. --T.Bednarz 14:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Carschten 12:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)