Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 07 2018

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Saint_Martin_church_of_Valencay.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Martin church of Valençay, Indre, France. --Tournasol7 06:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  SupportGood quality. --GT1976 06:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Double image on the cross and quite unsharp on the upper part of the picture, generally. -- Ikan Kekek 09:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened and could be a bit brighter, too. --Basotxerri 07:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Visible masking fringes especially at the top. The right building should be cropped out.--Ermell 07:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 15:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Osterholz-Scharmbeck,_Naturschutzgebiet_"Torfkanal_und_Randmoore"_--_2018_--_2983.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nature reserve “Torfkanal and Randmoore”, Osterholz-Scharmbeck, Lower Saxony, Germany --XRay 03:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice!--Famberhorst 04:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unclear subject or insufficient DOF. The description tells about a special nature reserve. But in focus is just a very common digitalis flower which could stand anywhere and is not the main subject according to description and composition. The characteristics of the special nature reserve however cannot be observed, because they are washed out. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    •  Comment Oppose withdrawn after fix of image description. --Johannes Robalotoff 14:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Johannes Robalotoff. --Fischer.H 07:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I just fixed the description of the photograph. --XRay 13:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see anything disturbing about the photo. QI for me. Might need a better filename though. --GerifalteDelSabana 15:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO reasonable use of DoF. --Basotxerri 16:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per Baso and Gerifalte.--Peulle 18:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - OK, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 01:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 15:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Renault_4CV_Tunisa.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Renault 4CV in the auto show of Sousse, Tunisa --Monaambf 09:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The WB is a bit off. Otherwise ok. --MB-one 11:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version of the photo with the corrections needed. Monaambf 11:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now --MB-one 12:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. For my taste, the car is too distorted and the often unavoidable light reflections in exhibitions disturb. Please let us hear what others say. -- Spurzem 09:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Most of the car is unsharp and the persons in the background are disturbing.--Ermell 07:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 13:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

File:2018_Kaplica_w_Rogówku_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chapel in Rogówek --Jacek Halicki 08:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 09:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment The "horizontal" lines of the door and the interior of the chapel appear to lean to the right, although a part of the vertical lines is really vertical. Are these objects really that deformed (seems unlikely to me) or is this an artifact from geometry transformation? --Johannes Robalotoff 21:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As long as there is no other evidence, I have to assume that the picture is distorted, as described by my comment above. --Johannes Robalotoff 13:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Neutral--Manfred Kuzel 19:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  SupportThe panels and the crucifix are aligned and were probably placed last. The rest must have distorted over the years.--Ermell 19:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 23:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Monument_to_King_Gustav_III_of_Sweden_(Stockholm).jpg

[edit]

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 23:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Fly_Bubble.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fly Bubble at National Botanical Garden of Bangladesh. By User:Abdulmominbd --RockyMasum 07:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Fischer.H 08:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It need a category about insect. It's not sharp enough IMO. Tournasol7 13:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The mouth area is not well rendered.--Peulle 13:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question Is this image upscaled? --GerifalteDelSabana 22:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Seems upscaled to me, and very posterized and artifacted. --GerifalteDelSabana 03:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 13:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

File:African_penguin,_Cape_Town_(_1050598).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Penguin standing with eyes closed at Boulders Beach, Cape Town --MB-one 14:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support OK for me. --Johannes Robalotoff 14:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. Needs a better categorization and identification. --GerifalteDelSabana 06:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @GerifalteDelSabana: File name, description and categories fixed. Thanks for the input. --MB-one 08:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --GT1976 04:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Basotxerri 20:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Very good, but Com:Overcat. -- Ikan Kekek 01:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Ikan Kekek can you elaborate? Which category is a parent of another one? --MB-one 15:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't checked, but logically, several of the categories you include should be subcategories of "Pictures of birds". -- Ikan Kekek 06:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, but I still think there are too many categories. -- Ikan Kekek 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 18:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Manfred Kuzel 19:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 23:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

File:2018_Bystrzyca_w_Młotach_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bystrzyca in Młoty 2 --Jacek Halicki 08:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposed; blown highlights. --Peulle 11:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support. Difficult light but no bad image for me. Please let's hear others. -- Spurzem 18:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many overexposed spots. Yes, light is difficult. But I think this scene can be done nevertheless without overexposure through a couple of techniques. --Johannes Robalotoff 14:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per opposers --Basotxerri (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Partly overexposed and disturbing power lines, no QI for me. --Fischer.H 07:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I find the power lines OK, but please fix the overexposed areas. -- Ikan Kekek 01:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 13:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Eivind_Strand_juli_2018.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Artist Eivind Raue Strand during a street concert in july 2018.--Peulle 23:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad framing and unsightly photography, sorry, Vanneau Asocial 11:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree; it's a street concert, there are objects everywhere and the framing had to take this into acount.--Peulle 11:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. Technically a QI, but composition isn't really good. --Smial 09:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. No good composition. I would like to see the right hand too. -- Spurzem 14:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Just for  Info as you can see the hand is obscured by the edge of a box, and there was no room to move further to the right.--Peulle 20:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 Comment It's not only the cut hand, a small detail that for itself lead to many declines of concert photos (and other portrait photos) in the past, but also missing use of rule-of-thirds or golden ratio. The head of the musician is vertically centered and horizontally too near to the top margin. Looks very unbalanced. --Smial 15:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
All good points, but my point is that in a scene such as this, there was no chance of such compositional options. You can see the stage in this shot, imagine it with lots of people around as well ...--Peulle (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I know such situations very well. --Smial 20:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Not a good composition but IMO still acceptable as a QI. --Basotxerri 17:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I've thought about it again. What seems disturbing to me is the crossing blurred cable in front. --Basotxerri 07:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. Technically good, but composition not really good, specially the right hand. --GT1976 04:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Weak support per Basile, good quality but this is not FPC so I disagree on opposing because of the composition, which is a matter of taste. --GerifalteDelSabana 22:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Just in the interest of fairness I will admit that composition is one of the valid criteria for judging QIs (as well as FPs), so I'm not raving at my opposers here.--Peulle 00:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I personally don't think the composition disturbs me too much. --GerifalteDelSabana 08:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Left margin is too disturbing, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 01:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 13:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)