Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 01 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:EDP_building_Lisboa.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Detail off a building of the EDP in Lisbon--Luís Gaspar 09:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose CA should be removed and the verticals fixed. --Ermell 13:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 11:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

File:2019_Strzał_z_broni_czarnoprochowej_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Shot off a black powder weapon 1 --Jacek Halicki 01:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 05:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Below 2 MP. --Steindy 10:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Below minimum size requirement.--Peulle 14:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 11:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Nazaré_Lighthouse.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Farol do Forte de São Miguel Arcanjo na Nazaré - Portugal. By Luís Gaspar 22:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 23:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Please fix categories. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 23:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I added a new category, but its a lighthouse detail--Luís Gaspar 16:40, 24 November 2019
  •  Comment The specific lighthouse category: Category:Nazaré Lighthouse was still missing, have added it. (Wikimedia Commons is not Flickr; our category system is hierarchical and much more refined that Flickr’s tags. In Commons, Lighthouses is the super-super-super-category for all lighthouses of the world; this photo shows a particular one, therefore we use the special category for it, Category:Nazaré Lighthouse.) --Aristeas 06:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 11:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Katowice_Muzeum_Śląskie_06.15_005.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination New building of the Silesian Museum in Katowice. By User:MacQtosh --Andrew J.Kurbiko 22:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I think it's not sharp enough and for me not a Q1 --Horst J. Meuter 23:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. The tower is sharp enough for QI. --Steindy 00:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Has it been downsized?--Peulle 13:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too blurry for a QI -- Alvesgaspar 07:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 11:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Thin_section_microscopy_Siilinjärvi_R301_6170_apatite.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fluorapatite grains in carbonate groundmass. --Kallerna 11:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 13:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Too blurry, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 19:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan. --Peulle 12:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 11:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Absberg_Kellergasse_58.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse in Absberg (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 06:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Patterns in the dark areas --Ermell 07:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. It's not the photo, that is wrong, it is the software. I think it could be repaired. --Steindy 22:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop. Framing is an important component of image quality. Alvesgaspar 20:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 11:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Wendeltreppe_im_Deutschordensschloss_Bad_Mergentheim.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2019. By User:SimonCiminski --Tomer T 06:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry aber das ist total matschig und unscharf. --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Translation of previous post (to help people who do not speak German): “It's totally muddy and blurry.”
  •  Support Of course this photo is somewhat soft, but IMHO the quality is quite OK, especially for the camera of a smartphone which was released in 2015. And for this photo of a spiral staircase, a very small sensor is IMHO a good choice. I have tried to take similar photos of a spiral staircase with a “full-frame” camera, but even at f/16, DOF is too small for this extreme perspective, and at f/22, the full-frame photo would become soft; so we would have to use focus stacking. Here the extreme DOF of a smartphone camera is really an advantage. In a single shot it has captured the spiral staircase quite well. In addition, composition, exposure and colours are fine, so this is a QI for me. --Aristeas 08:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Nein. Schon die Billiglinse Walimex 2,8/14 reicht bei APS-C und Offenblende von 2 m bis unendlich, bei f22 gehts auf 0,3 m bis unendlich. Hier hat irgendeine Software das Bild zermatscht. Telefone können brauchbare Fotos machen, dann aber bitte RAW. --Ralf Roletschek 12:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm with Ralf on this one; the photo looks like it's gone through excessive noise reduction and I'm not convinced that this level of technical quality is high enough for QI.--Peulle 11:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Somewhat noisy in the dark areas, but all in all good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 18:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Completely destructive noise reduction combined with some sharpening artifacts. Very nice composition and acceptable colours, but the technical quality kills it, sorry. --Smial 22:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition but very poor image quality -- Alvesgaspar 07:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 11:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Altar_of_Saint_Anne,_artist_unknown,_Germany,_1516,_polychromed_and_gilded_wood_-_Busch-Reisinger_Museum,_Harvard_University_-_DSC01071.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture in the Busch-Reisinger Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S. By User:Daderot --Another Believer 01:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficiently sharp. --Tomer T 07:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Viewed at full screen on a 24-inch monitor, I'd say that this is sufficiently sharp. --Bobulous 20:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enoug for QI. --Palauenc05 18:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful image und sharp enough -- Spurzem 13:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 11:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Palácio_da_Justiça_de_São_Paulo_por_Rodrigo_Tetsuo_Argenton_(07).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination -Rodrigo.Argenton 18:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Feels like a clockwise rotation of a degree or two is needed. --Bobulous 20:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 22:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can't help but see the need for a rotation here, so I'm marking this for discussion. --Bobulous 12:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs CW rotation, and perspective correction. Also rather noisy regarding only ISO800. -- Smial 22:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with opposer, terrible noise! -- Alvesgaspar 07:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Difficult conditions for photography but not a really high-quality result, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 10:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 13:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Tombe_au_cimétière_Pk14_à_cotonou_Bénin_vue_du_chevet.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tombe au cimétière Pk14 à cotonou Bénin vue du chevet --Adoscam 14:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 17:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strong (compression) artifacts, CA remains in the trees, distorted. --Carschten 22:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Carschten. Compact cameras do often struggle with reaching the technical quality needed for QIs.--Peulle 09:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above --Andrew J.Kurbiko 23:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 10:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Großweikersdorf_Höllgraben_14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse „Höllgraben" in Großweikersdorf (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 06:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 17:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose this one looks slightly out of focus to me. Because of this unsharpness not a QI to me --Carschten 22:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I must agree. Not sharp enough.--Peulle 09:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 10:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC))

File:Un_plat_d'haricot_au_Bénin1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A dish of beans in Benin --Adoscam 16:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Maybe if you turn it --Moroder 16:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 22:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree --Moroder 22:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Per Moroder. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 09:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Struggling with the typical mobile phone issues; lighting, noise... I also don't think the composition quite works. --Peulle 09:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 10:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)