Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 30 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Ilala_on_malawi_lake.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ilala on malawi lake (by Davidktorza) --Adoscam 22:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 06:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very nice composition. But to many highlights are blown out, detail and sharpness are lacking. --Augustgeyler 14:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I find the level of detail acceptable (although I think the photo is downsized), but the blown out hightlights need to be fixed. --C messier 21:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very sorry, but per C messier --Sandro Halank 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Constância_November_2021-3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ruins of a house with a solitary cat in Constância, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 14:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Weak oppose To me it is underexposed and overall soft. Can these be corrected? --Tagooty 03:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment We could say that if the purpose were to illustrate the subject as clearly as possible. But here, I aimed to transmit a mood of desolation. Concerning the apparent softeness, please note this is a very large image. -- Alvesgaspar 12:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Moved to CR before it is removed -- Alvesgaspar 09:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Works for me the way you intended. Good quality, not very soft. -- Ikan Kekek 05:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnecessarily showing that much sky and tilting the camera that high resulted in a uncomfortable angle and – in my eyes – disadvantageous exposure for the main object. --Augustgeyler 10:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Info A new version with slight modifications was uploaded, including cropping part of the sky and adjusting the perspective. -- Alvesgaspar 16:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment A little improvement, but too little to change my mind. Let's see other opinions. --Augustgeyler 16:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Sturm_Xavier_Eisenbahn_Schaden_in_Zeesen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination European windstorm Xavier (2017). Damage to the railway in Zeesen, Germany. --V.Boldychev 11:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sadly the subject of that image – the damage (the fallen tree) is not sharp. --Augustgeyler 22:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for the review. ✓ New version uploaded. Is it OK now? --V.Boldychev 23:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment It got even worse. It is still unsharp but now in addition it has sharpening artefacts. --Augustgeyler 20:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd consider the original but would definitely oppose this version per Augustgeyler. -- Ikan Kekek 05:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The original image was cropped but not resized. The next mast and the level crossing were cut off. Red and white striped tape is blurry, but the main subject is in focus. For example, two catenary cables can be recognized in front of the trunk of the fallen tree. The cable thickness in the photo is only about 2 px. --V.Boldychev 10:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for those details. So I think, it looks that un-detailed and unsharp due to that intense crop. The result is similar: Level of details remains too low.--Augustgeyler 10:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The number of pixels in the photo is 3.8 megapixels. The main subject is in focus. The spatial resolution of the photo is comparable to the spatial resolution of the frog photo in the Commons Image guidelines (Quality and featured photographic images). You can compare the number of line pairs per side of the photo, or, if the number of pixels per side is the same, the number of pixels per a line pair. Please use the Commons Image guidelines. --V.Boldychev 15:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes I hardly try to. The result is just not sharp enough. If I would be totally wrong many other reviewers would have voted oppositely during the last four days. --Augustgeyler (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's right. Thank you. --V.Boldychev 09:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 12:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

File:SC_Wiener_Neustadt_vs._SC_Austria_Lustenau_2018-04-24_(009).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Alexander Sebald. goalkeeper of SC Austria Lustenau. --Steindy 00:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sadly the players face is not sharp / detailed enough. As well as I see again the effects of intense noise-reduction or compression leading to loss of detail. --Augustgeyler 09:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree! It's not a portait of the player, it's an action shot and the face therefore is sharp enough, --Steindy 14:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I think Steindy is right. Sharp enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 06:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, this one seems fine. Metadata would be nice, though.--Peulle 11:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 17:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality --Sandro Halank 18:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 19:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Sign_-_to_protect_the_meadows,_please_stay_on_the_paths_(German)_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sign - to protect the meadows, please stay on the paths (in German), placed on a stile on the footpath up from Obernberg villag to Obernberger See in Tyrol, Austria --Kritzolina 17:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality --Domob 10:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but for an image taken in 2021 there is too less detail. --Augustgeyler 23:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Corners a bit soft, but above 6 MPixels and good enough to be printed to A4 size, or larger. --Smial 10:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose odd composition. --Kallerna 17:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the framing and the composition is weird indeed. If the subject is the (discrete) yellow sign, why include the trees in the top left corner (including the human figure)? - Alvesgaspar 22:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition may be atypical, but that doesn't make it bad, and the relative unsharpness in the corners is not very important. As for the level of detail, the sign is completely clear and the smaller URL line is quite readable, so what else is important? That we can't count all the blades of grass? :-) -- Ikan Kekek 07:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose imho the corners are too unsharp for QI --Sandro Halank 22:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Radovljica_Linhartov_Trg_Pfarrkirche_hl_Petrus_Hauptportal_24062016_2842.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Main portal of St. Peter's Church on Linhart Square, Radovljica, Upper Carniola, Slovenia -- Johann Jaritz 03:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural perspective correction -- Alvesgaspar 05:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 11:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 09:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Verticals are overcorrected. Two thick vertical beams of the lantern brackets converge to a point below the horizon. --V.Boldychev 22:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With other opposers. --Augustgeyler 00:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per V.Boldychev --Sandro Halank 22:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --C messier 21:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)