Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 11 2018

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Corvus_splendens_@_Kuala_Lumpur_(4s,_p6).jpg

[edit]

  • This can´t be said in general. Sometimes a cut tail doesn't matter, but in this case the composition in unfavorable, even the other dominant bird is complete. --Milseburg 05:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 05:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikimania_2018,_Cape_Town_(_1050423).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fish and Chips at Thirty Ate, Cape Town --MB-one 12:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Some blurriness at the top of the fries, but yumm.  Support Still GQ. --GerifalteDelSabana 12:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Sorry, extremely unfortunate lighting, low DOF, bad focussing. Why should this random snapshot be QI? --Smial 13:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
     Comment Because IMHO, this "random snapshot" has the technical quality (i.e. sharpness and focus) to pass QIC. --GerifalteDelSabana 14:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
     Oppose Not far from QI, but I think the DoF is too short, leaving some chips and the aioli out of focus.--Peulle 14:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle - appetizing photo but not quite a QI, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 01:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Cochem,_Reichsburg_--_2018_--_0021.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 12:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint-Malo_Le_Fort-National_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint-Malo le Fort National.--Pierre André Leclercq 10:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment The horizon is tilted 1.5° ccw. --Milseburg 11:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done correction of horizon tilted, thanks for your advice. --Pierre André Leclercq 13:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Not done Sorry, but the horizon ist still hanging down on the left side. --Milseburg 09:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the hint. I´ve uploaded a new version correction tilted 1.5° ccw.--Pierre André Leclercq 13:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Info I wasn't really convinced. As proposal I've uploaded a new version myself. Send it to CR or restore your version. --Milseburg 09:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC) So others have to decide now. --Milseburg 13:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Current version is OK. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality! --GPSLeo 22:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Nice. -- Ikan Kekek 01:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

File:St_Mary's_Church,_Upton_2018.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St Mary's church viewed across Ford Road. Grade II listed. --Rodhullandemu 21:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support OK for me--Manfred Kuzel 20:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The bar up front is pretty disturbing--Moroder 07:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Here is a map of the location
    . The bar, marked by the black arrow, is a lamp standard. Having contacted the local council, they are not willing to remove it. This is the "best side" of this church. There is a tree to the left of the church gate. Please tell me where to stand to not include the lamp standard, and I'll go back. But I don't think it's possible. Are you really implying that there can be no QIs of old and beautiful buildings because some thoughtless functionary has failed to appreciate their context? That's not our fault. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Your argument seems pretty convincing but I'm puzzled that with a 13 mm lens you can't move closer. I'd also suggest to get different shots and stich them together what I do most of the time in Venice, where there is much less space, with a 45mm/medium format lens. Cheers --Moroder 14:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no way I am going to stand in the middle of a busy road on a blind bend trying to pan a tripod across the frontage. So I'm stuck with a 10mm lens from the pavement or the 13m from across the road. My experience of stitched images tells me that it's a bit hit or miss and the results are only ideal occasionally. Rodhullandemu 20:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The pole is fine. The CA, though, is not.--Peulle 23:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    •  Comment I found a tiny, minute, negligible CA, which is now fixed. Sorry if it's still not good enough but I have a cataract. Please point out any remaining defects. Rodhullandemu 23:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    I made a couple of notes on the image. The CA are especially visible where the stone meets the sky, particularly on the cross (top right) ad tower (top left). The reason I see it is that stone is supposed to be grey/brown, not green or purple, so it must be CA.--Peulle 18:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Stone is green when it has moss or lichen on it. However, I've dragged it through DPP to try and fix it, and I hope I've done so. Thanks for the image notes. Rodhullandemu 20:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 Support Looks OK now.--Peulle 00:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 16:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

File:2018_Kaplica_w_Rogówku_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chapel in Rogówek 1 --Jacek Halicki 09:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same assumed distortions as for the nearly identical image already in the discussion area. --Johannes Robalotoff 14:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
    • "Oppose" withdrawn after Franz van Duns's answer. I did not think about actual photographic distortions anyway, but about post-processing artifacts from an assumed perspective correction with inadequate parameters. Seems as if this is not the case. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. --Basotxerri 05:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support The chapel is obviously old and blends perfectly with the surrounding trees and greens. The view through the opening in the weathered fence is a smug and pleasing fit. The German text in the obsolete "Fraktura" typeset states "Josef, Maria und Jesus / Euch schenk ich mein Herz und meine Seele", i.e. "Joseph, Mary and Jesus, I offer you my heart and my soul " and is surely pre-WWI. As to the irregular edges separating the yellow and white areas: these are certainly not photographical distortions - the window frames and eaves of my great-great-grandfather's self-constructed village house, also in eastern Europe, were just as irregular as this chapel's. --Franz van Duns 20:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. --GerifalteDelSabana 14:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 16:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)