Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 18 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Cold_cheesecake_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cold cheesecake. --Tournasol7 00:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Basile Morin 04:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Unfortunate lighting and composition. Reflections and hard shadows by flash. --Smial 11:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Close-up of a slice of cake in the center of the image, I really don't see any problem of composition here. Not the best light for sure, but in interior very detailed subject IMO -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, if "good composition" means that objects should be centered and nothing is truncated, then we can remove the criterion "composition" completely from the criteria catalog for QI. This photo may be sufficient in its technical quality (noise, sharpness, white balance), but in its lighting and framing it only equals a random snapshot with a mobile phone, and it is an insult to many other commons photographers, who try hard to adequately depict food. --Smial 10:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but it's not candidate for FP. And it's not random composition; the wood in the background, nothing disturb, just chasecake in the foreground. Tournasol7 15:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
ok, I understand that burnt higklights, funny reflections and hard shadows when depicting faces or insects or artwork are a reason to decline, while images of food with the same faults are QI. Lesson learnt. --Smial 18:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support minor reflections, but well exposed and super sharp. --MB-one 10:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial.--Fischer.H 17:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - The subject is quite clear, and that's all that IMO really matters in this case. -- Ikan Kekek 05:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Tombe_du_compositeur_Jules_Ward_au_cimetière_de_Jujurieux_(France).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tombe du compositeur Jules Ward au cimetière de Jujurieux (France). --Benoît Prieur 13:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Didn't think that I would ever promote a picture made with a phone. The sky is overexposed with a color shift, but this is not too disturbing with this subject. Surprised that the typical in-cell-phone processing artifacts are not present here. --Johannes Robalotoff 14:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sharpness isn't the best ... --XRay 16:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown hightlights in the sky. --Ermell 17:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - IMO, the tombstone is sharp enough and the sky isn't that bad or really distracting, unless you focus on the somewhat blown section intentionally. -- Ikan Kekek 00:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry per XRay --Paris Orlando 18:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose to many unsharp areas.--Fischer.H 10:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)