Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 30 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Eide_Bjugn.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Landscape in Ørland --TommyG 10:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but unfortunately too soft. --MB-one 12:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version I've added some sharpening to the original, though keep in mind this photograph was taken 17 years ago and digital cameras back then simply didn't have the same level of sharpness/resolution you find in modern cameras.TommyG 19:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Little noisy, but IMO worth a discussion --Jakubhal 13:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Pretty and painterly. I'd allow it. -- Ikan Kekek 05:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Lengurbill_beach_06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lengurbill beach, Teknaf, Cox's Bazar. --RockyMasum 06:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 15:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good motive. But sorry there is a significant lack of detail. --Augustgeyler 22:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Fischer.H 17:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose good composition with insufficient detail for a QI --Virtual-Pano 22:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Lengurbill_beach_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lengurbill beach, Teknaf, Cox's Bazar. --RockyMasum 06:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 15:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good motive. But there is a significant lack of detail. --Augustgeyler 22:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose I agree with August in this instance. The boats are the most interesting thing in the picture, so I'd like them to be at least somewhat sharper. -- Ikan Kekek 05:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 09:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Fischlham_Erinnerungsstätte_Kriegerdenkmal-0375.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fischlham memorial, Fischlham /Upper Austria --Isiwal 08:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Yes it is a good composition. But this memorial is made to combine the front wall with this one in the back. But the wall in the background is completely in shadow. The lighting condidtions and shadows are unsiutable. --Augustgeyler 23:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. May be that the lighting conditions could be a bit better but they are not bad. -- Spurzem 09:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 09:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. --Scotch Mist 07:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Riga_Landmarks_57.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Riga Castle with race cyclists passing --Scotch Mist 05:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 10:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If it is about the cyclists, there is not enough detail of them. --Augustgeyler 16:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Dust spot a bit below and slightly to the left of the upper right corner. -- Ikan Kekek 09:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Even better spot - removed and edited caption --Scotch Mist 11:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please clean the solitary branches on the right --Moroder 01:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC) ✓ Done --Scotch Mist 06:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with August that the cyclists and the foreground in general is somewhat unsharp; however, that's a legitimate artistic choice, and the castle is sharp enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 07:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:2020_Krzywa_Wieża_w_Ząbkowicach_Śląskich_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tower in Ząbkowice Śląskie 3 --Jacek Halicki 07:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support GQ --Palauenc05 07:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Only one of the three should be promoted. --Palauenc05 15:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would rather promote the variant 1 of this series, since it excludes the light pole and the road sign in the foreground which are a little distracting. --Lion-hearted85 13:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Variant one is better. Here the composition is distracted by that cropped sign on the right.--Augustgeyler (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I haven't seen or don't remember the other photos in this series, but since everyone admits that they are not identical to this, I don't see on what basis this is being opposed as such. As I recall, there is no guideline for approval that photos must be x-amount different from other photos. -- Ikan Kekek 06:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Ikan Kekek: Of course you are absolutely right. I'd review in the same way if there would have been no similar shots. --Augustgeyler 09:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 09:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Wind_Turbine_Enercon_E-82_at_Wind_Park_Mausdorf_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A wind turbine of type Enercon E-82, which is part of the wind park Mausdorf in northern Bavaria --Spike 22:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose  Request Sorry, it’s suggested. I don't see any reviews done by you as requested by QIC guidelines for each nomination --Moroder 08:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, I did not know this guideline existed because it was in the "How to review" section which I did not read thoroughly. Have now done some reviews and I have also moved the guideline to the "For nominators" chapter, so that other nominators don't make the same mistake that I made. Spike 15:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment ok, so let's discuss this. --Augustgeyler 21:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support because the upper sky is blotchy, but a good photo, overall. -- Ikan Kekek 09:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   weak contra I like that picture but the light is not good enough. The most interesting part, the rotor, is completely in shadow. The upper part of this picture became very dark. --Augustgeyler 10:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Full disclosure: I had nominated a very similar image at the same time as this image: File:Wind_Turbine_Enercon_E-82_at_Wind_Park_Mausdorf_02.jpg. That image already successfully slipped through the QI nomination process. Should this image fail, I assume that the other one should probably also lose its QI status. Spike 11:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't see why it should. Getting an image promoted to QI is at least partially down to luck, and having your image end up in CR sort of by accident (like what happened here) is, I think, an example of bad luck, as people tend to be more strict here. --ReneeWrites 23:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I don’t want to be the cause of bad luck ;-). The photo is good for me --Moroder 01:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Steirischer_Ölkürbis_Feld_Allhaming_20200911b.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Field of Cucurbita pepo var. styriaca, Austria. Ready for mechanical harvesting --Tigerente 21:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Aristeas 08:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree  Request I don't see any reviews done by you as requested by QIC guidelines for each nomination --Moroder 09:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support looks like a QI to me Poco a poco 22:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice photo and good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 09:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support good layout and attractive focus --Virtual-Pano 22:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 23:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:GAZ_"Tigr"_(black_colored)_during_the_"Armiya_2020"_exhibition.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Armored SUV "Tigr" during the "Armiya 2020" exhibition --Kirill Borisenko 22:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Please fix the overexposed area. --SCP-2000 08:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose even if overexposure could be fixed (which I doubt), the shot is very average, with disturbing shadows and cluttered composition. Some parts look overprocessed too. --Yerpo 08:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Is that better? --Kirill Borisenko 01:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    I have removed your vote, you are not eligible to vote for your image Poco a poco 22:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Large areas blown. -- Ikan Kekek 07:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Look at link - there is edited version (external hosting for saving commons site space :)). How about that view? --Kirill Borisenko 00:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ikan Kekek Poco a poco 22:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Look at link - there is edited version (external hosting for saving commons site space :)). How about that view? --Kirill Borisenko 00:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
SCP-2000@ Yerpo@ Ikan Kekek@ Poco a poco@ Or how about that variant? } --
Kirill Borisenko: sorry, no big improvement, the areas are blown due to overexposure. Furthermore the processing isn't good, the image doesn't look natural at all, look a the grid in front of the windscreen or at the ligth on the top Poco a poco 10:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 11:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Jelgava_Churches_17.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Framed Icon of Mary and Jesus at Orthodox Cathedral in Jelgava --Scotch Mist 06:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but the viewing angle isn't well chosen. Uneven sharpness in the relevant areas. Color fringes in the upper left corner. --Zinnmann 07:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Zinnmann: Thank you for your review but the angle was dictated by the incense urn hanging in front of the painting (see left side) so I had no choice but to photograph from the side which was certainly not 'ideal' --Scotch Mist 09:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hard circumstances may keep an object from being photographed as a quality one.--Augustgeyler 09:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC) - @Augustgeyler: This goes without saying but I was attempting to make the point that simply because an object cannot be photographed under ideal circumstances should not rule it out for QI providing of course it meets basic QI criteria (as indicated above I am not saying that this image necessarily does!:) --SM1 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Zinnmann.--Peulle 12:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfortunately this angle doesn't do it for me either --Virtual-Pano 23:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined XRay 06:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:La_chiesa_di_Santa_Croce_vista_dalla_Torre.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The church of Santa Croce seen from the Tower of Populonia with the Gulf of Baratti in the background --PROPOLI87 09:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support good composition. very interesting lighting situation. --Augustgeyler 09:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough, in my opinion, and the land across the gulf looks too blue. -- Ikan Kekek 10:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I corrected, now okay? -- PROPOLI87 11:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment No. -- Ikan Kekek 11:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I can not do more than that otherwise with each change the photo gets worse -- PROPOLI87 12:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's probably not fixable, then, although you could always try redeveloping it from the RAW if you have it, but don't ask me for advice on how; I can tell you what I see, but I usually photograph only with my iPhone and don't have very advanced Photoshop skills. -- Ikan Kekek 10:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)::: CommentI started all over again and re-released a new version on quality. I like this photo and I'm working on it till I drop. Thanks for the help and targeted criticism, which are allowing me to improve my photos more and more.PROPOLI87 07:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 07:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough,look at the entrance of the chapel. --Palauenc05 06:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment This version seems a bit overcooked to me. Colours and contrast have become quite harsh. I would say that the original is still the best version, and you could enhance it with smaller tweaks—such as raising the colour temperature to remove the blueish colour cast; if the sea is still too blue, you could consider to selectively de-saturate the blue colours. The original has plenty of contrast already in my opinion. Like Ikan says, I suggest you work on the RAW file if available so that you can freely dial back your processing if necessary (or to start working from scratch from the original version).-- Lion-hearted85 12:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    ✓ DoneI followed your advice and made this new version. I don't even know if I could have made this correction at this stage, but I did.PROPOLI87 13:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 13:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for your effort, but I doubt if you can improve this image. Just look at that tree, or whatever it is, next to the entrance of the church. This part of the picture is still quite blurry. --Palauenc05 14:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Couleurs irréalistes et contraste très élevé. Mauvaise numérisation du fichier. Grand manque de détails. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice frame, but does not meet the criteria for QI inn terms of sharpness as mentioned above --Virtual-Pano 23:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined XRay 06:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz 680 Sport, Techno-Classica 2018, Essen (IMG 9286).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wooden toolbox on a Mercedes-Benz 680 Sport at Techno-Classica 2018, Essen --MB-one 16:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Vincent60030 08:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For a static object like this box, there should be more sharpness and detail. And the picture should be cropped a little more. --Augustgeyler 13:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per August --Michielverbeek 06:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined XRay 06:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)