Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 26 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Pingüinos_de_El_Cabo_(Spheniscus_demersus),_Playa_de_Boulders,_Simon's_Town,_Sudáfrica,_2018-07-23,_DD_20.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination African penguins (Spheniscus demersus), Boulders Beach, Simon's Town, South Africa --Poco a poco 16:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Background dominates the image compared to the subject, and is blurry. --Msaynevirta 19:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version Poco a poco 12:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I got no feedback, may I move it to CR? --Poco a poco 20:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 11:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Tournasol7 20:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Okay at 100% but as a thumbnail the penguins are just a little too unnoticeable lol. --GerifalteDelSabana 00:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 15:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Sninský_kameň_(v_novembri)_002.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sninský kameň --Milan Bališin 19:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The main subject is the summit but it's totally covered by trees. An undefined category link must be corrected. --Basotxerri 18:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sninský kameň is not only summit, it's all over, it's mountain, with trees and rocks. What link (November 2018 in Slovakia)? --Milan Bališin 17:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Technically good, shows obviously the correct situation (a rocky outcrop in a heavily wooded area). Greetings --Dirtsc 09:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 16:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Třeboň,_kostel_svatého_Jiljí_a_Panny_Marie_Královny_IMG_6251_2018-08-01_12.33.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Třeboň South Bohemia-CZ, church: kostel svatého Jiljí a Panny Marie Královny --Michielverbeek 17:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The part of another house on the left is distracting. --JiriMatejicek 20:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have ✓ Done a left crop, please give a new review --Michielverbeek 19:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now. I would remove that white spot/bar in the sky on the left of the tower, though. --Basotxerri 17:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Yes I saw it above the roof --Michielverbeek 17:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks tilted to the left. --C messier 11:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC) You are right, but it is lttle bit --Michielverbeek 17:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support o.k. for me.--Ermell 08:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Clearly leaning back as it goes up. I thought that was normally not acceptable here. Is it? -- Ikan Kekek 05:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose You are right. I only checked the left side.--Ermell 07:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per my comment above. -- Ikan Kekek 07:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 10:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Hamburg_Fuenfhausener_Hauptdeich_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hamburg-Neuland, residential and farm building Fuenfhausener Hauptdeich 2 --KaiBorgeest 21:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Syed07 15:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Tilted, perspective. --Basotxerri 18:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment With a small perspective correction it would be good. --Dirtsc 08:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't see what perspective should be corrected. But I would like the image still more if it were a bit darker. -- Spurzem 20:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The reason is because it's in the guidelines and the verticals aren't vertical. This must be corrected. --Basotxerri 17:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  conditional oppose Looks overall ok, but is it downsized? --Milseburg (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Was ist denn das für ein Grund, ein Bild abzuwerten? -- Spurzem 07:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
As I know the guidline "Images should not be downsampled" is still aktiv, isn´t it? Since it´s a simple motif the question why the resolution is 3000x2000 instead of 6000x4000 should be allowed before promotion. --Milseburg 15:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems to be active only when a majority of the participating judges don't feel like engaging in jury nullification of the guideline, because they like the photo, the photographer or both. -- Ikan Kekek 07:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Downsized with no good cause, so it's an  Oppose and anybody who disagree are just plain wrong.--Peulle 16:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment - The only strict requirement is the minimum number of pixels, this is OK. Concerning downsizing and total resolution there has been already a lengthy discussion on the respective pages which have not come to a clear result.
So each voter may feel free to decide himself if the picture is sharp enough or not.--KaiBorgeest 23:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
But only 25% are really quite low.  Question I wish you had written in the last two weeks why you opted for only a quarter of the possible resolution. --Milseburg 09:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)  Comment 3000x2000 watches comfortably on a screen without scrolling too much as with larger pixel numbers. No important detail or exciting texture has got lost (except the sheet behind the post box, where it is beneficial that it cannot be read anymore).--KaiBorgeest 21:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 19:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)