Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 16 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

==[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Basil's Cathedral --大诺史 09:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Strong distortion --George Chernilevsky 10:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective looks natural but dramatic, and the composition and colours are beautiful. --Bobulous 17:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry and very distorted. Also there is noise on sky --Nino Verde (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The noise level is still OK for me, but I would correct the perspective (vertical lines are leaning in, they should be vertical). In addition, the image seems somewhat overprocessed: Too much saturation, probably too much clarity and/or other effects applied --Aristeas 09:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC) And there is an irritating area at the left of the left-most church tower. Seems that something was removed here from the photo, but the area needs more work. --Aristeas (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 15:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Visby_domkyrka_July_2019_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Visby Cathedral --ArildV 04:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Please remove a dust spot (I have marked it with a image note). Personally, I would also make the area around the portal a bit darker (decrease exposure locally). The perspective of the tower is a bit extreme, but it is completely according to our usual requirement of perspective correction, so it’s fine. --Aristeas 07:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for review, new version uploaded (dust spots and locally exposure correction). It´s almost no perspective correction here (vertical -3 in lightroom) but the images is taken with a ultra wide lense (12mm, full frame), there is a narrow space around the church and and tall trees. --ArildV 16:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective adjustment feels too severe. --Bobulous 19:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC) />
  •  Comment I strongly disagree (see above, almost no perspective adjustment and the only way to show the church from this angle!) Please read above and see the [original file]. No severe adjustment here. --ArildV 20:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support @ArildV: Thank you for the adjustments! IMHO very good now. – Of course I understand that the extreme perspective of the tower may look strange. But this is not due to excessive correction, it is just the natural perspective which is unavoidable if one stands so near to a building; that’s just reality. And if there is narrow space around a building, then one must stand so near to the building if he/she has to take a photo of it. So the extreme perspective is unavoidable. The only alternative would be to tilt the camera. But this would, given that one must stand so near to the building, result in really very falling lines, which would look extreme, too, and I doubt that this would be better. According to our usual recommendations for taking photographs of buildings, Arild has done everything right, and it would be unfair to punish him for doing so by declining this photo. --Aristeas 09:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too strong distorted --Ralf Roletschek 18:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted -- Spurzem 19:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 15:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Ladybird.tif[edit]

  • Nomination Ladybird by User:RSC-KWC --D-Kuru 09:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose shame, not in focus at all --Charlesjsharp 10:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    How is the hair on the back not in focus? --D-Kuru 13:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Somewhat low DOF and focus should have been more precisely on the head, but good enough for A4 print. --Smial 07:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
     Support Good quality, good perspective. --Steindy 12:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 15:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Tulln_Gartenbaumesse_Feuerwerk_20190831_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fireworks on the occasion of the horticultural fair 2019 in Tulln, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 03:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Does not capture the fireworks at maximum size, brightness, and color. --Senator2029 11:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support same as above --Smial 09:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 12:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 15:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-07-20_Lennon_Wall_in_Hong_Kong_book_fair(1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A part of Lennon Wall in Hong Kong book fair. --SCP-2000 03:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Please don't nominate your photos again unless the issues mentioned in the previous nomination were resolved --Podzemnik 04:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Podzemnik --Cvmontuy 03:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. --SCP-2000 05:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @SCP-2000 you disagree with what? Sorry but your comment makes me feel like you just want the image to be sent into a discussion. --Podzemnik 03:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I took a lok at the archive page, and it seems that this image was never reviewed, is that right? Now it was renominated. As far as the rules go, I can't see anything in the guidelines against this; if an image was previously declined, it is not to be renominated without making the needed changes, but what if the image was left unreviewed in the first instance? I can see this becoming a nuisance if nominators simply renominate any and all images that are not reviewed, as the lack of a review might be a statement in itself, but on the other hand I don't think it's against the rules...--Peulle 10:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment I don't think the lack of a review is a statement itself. If an image isn't good enough, it should be declined. If it was ignored, renomination is imho fine. -- Smial 16:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Smial @Peulle I agree with you both that renominating a file that hasn't been reviewed is fine. However, the full story is that the user nominated similar images before - most of them were declined, some of them also discussed - see eg. here or here. This file is from the same series so I'd say that what was said about previous nominations, is valid here too, even though this particular image hasn't been reviewed. This nomination kind of feels like in a try-error style and I think we shouldn't encourage these types of nominations. Just my opinion though, feel free to disagree or support the photo :) Regards, --Podzemnik 00:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 15:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Kapu_Beach_Lighthouse_.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kapu Beach Lighthouse, India by KshitizBathwal --IM3847 17:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support The colours on the right side in the water are a bit noisy, but overall it's up to QI IMO --D-Kuru 18:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The file was nominated for deletion. Let's wait for the DR to be over, then you can nominate the photo again --Podzemnik 05:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment The DR is almost closed. OTRS mail was sent and just waits for processing. --D-Kuru 07:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support assuming the uploader is the person who took the picture and OTRS will be processed soon. --Kritzolina 07:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --OTRS Processed. Seven Pandas 15:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)