Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 17 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Egyptian_House,_Zaharievskaya_23,_Saint_Petersburg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Zaharievskaya, 23 ('Egyptian House') Saint Petersburg, Russia --Reda Kerbouche 10:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Could be sharper, but good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 10:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree. It should be sharper and something went wrong with the perspective. --Tournasol7 05:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Palauenc05 and Tournasol7: ✓ Done the image now is sharped and littel correction of the perspective--Reda Kerbouche 07:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
      •  Comment Sorry, but it can't be sharper without losing quality. I still oppose. --Tournasol7 20:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment First version is sharp enough. Perspective is acceptable, but there is some pincushion distortion. Second version looks oversharpened, but still has pincushion distortion. --Smial 10:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I like this photo, but I think it's not quite sharp enough for QI. I'd welcome more opinions. -- Ikan Kekek 05:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp --Trougnouf 09:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Trougnouf 09:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Statue_in_Jardins_de_la_Fontaine_in_Nimes_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statue in Jardins de la Fontaine in Nîmes, Gard, France. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 00:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Blurred in the left quarter. --F. Riedelio 09:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment The main object is in focus. --Tournasol7 19:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject seems sharp to me, and the soft lighting is good. --Lion-hearted85 00:07, 13 April 2021
  •  Support per Lion-hearted85. It's OK for the background to be blurred. -- Ikan Kekek 05:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfect DoF control. --LexKurochkin 07:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Lion-hearted85 and Ikan. --Smial 10:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 06:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Haardt_an_der_Weinstraße_Mandelring_7_005_2020_09_14.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Former winemaking cooperative in Haardt an der Weinstraße --F. Riedelio 14:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Out of focus, chromatic aberration --Wilfredor 15:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
✓ New version CA removed. The object is sharp enough for me. --F. Riedelio 06:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK to me. Is this the maximum size? -- Ikan Kekek 06:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
✓ New version Maximum size. --F. Riedelio 12:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks. I find this OK. -- Ikan Kekek 07:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support QI support. PsamatheM 14:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Aristeas 14:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support the cars are unfortunate, but including more of them would throw the composition off. good for QI Rhododendrites 12:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 06:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Common_pigeon_(Columba_livia)_in_Moscow,_Russia_on_2021_April_04_(0139).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Common pigeon (Columba livia) in Moscow, Russia --LexKurochkin 13:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bird's head and part of body is in shadow and thus not clear --PsamatheM 16:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, the head is clearly visible with good level of detail. --LexKurochkin 16:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose it is a poorly composed image --Charlesjsharp 18:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough, IMO, but do understand that because rock pigeons are so common and so comfortable around people, most reviewers understandably have much higher standards for photos of them than of scarcer or more timid birds. -- Ikan Kekek 03:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment I see, and there is no problem with this approach. And you are right, it was a shot of opportunity. I went to photograph a church, but this pigeon came so close, that I was seduced to take the photo. As you can see, the line of sight is nearly vertical, it was near my feet. I never had a chance to photograph a bird like this. --LexKurochkin 18:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition is not ideal, but Commons has need of top-down shots like this too. The shadow is a bit disturbing, but otherwise I'm not seeing a huge problem with the sharpness; many photos of similar quality have been promoted before. --Peulle 09:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not good enough for such an easy targer, bad composition overall. --Kallerna 16:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charlesjsharp and PsamatheM - --GRDN711 15:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined XRay 06:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Face_of_Horse_in_Manno_(Switzerland)_4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Face of Horse in Manno (Switzerland) --Commonists 18:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry: disturbing bar in the face. --F. Riedelio 07:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment For me isn't disturbing, can we discuss it? --Commonists 14:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me, the head of the horse is VERY sharp, overall composition with the bar is not outstanding but still OK for me. --Tuxyso 09:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per F. Riedelio. --Fischer.H 16:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Commonists: My daughter saw this photo on my monitor and immediately asked me to send her the link. Now it is "useful & used" as a background image in my daughter's smartphone. Thank you! :) --LexKurochkin 17:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Well... Considering my previous comment, I am not an independent reviewer in this particular case, but nevertheless this is my opinion. IMO the horse face is sharp and the bar above it is not really disturbing. On the other hand I am slightly surprised that nobody mentioned the noise in out of focus areas and the noise looks like the image was slightly oversharpened. Considering the image size this problem is not critical. I think also that wide-angle lens made the horse body looking rather unnatural, but it is not prohibited by the QI guidelines. All in all, I think the image is not perfect, but good enough for QI. --LexKurochkin 11:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the composition/arrangement doesn't convince me to step over the QI bar. --Milseburg 17:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment No problem Milseburg, Criticism is the salt of Democracy. Regards. --Commonists 20:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp eye and not cropped, I think that's good enough for QI. The perspective is a bit awkward but it doesn't need to be as straight with this subject and horses are weird to photograph since they are so long and either come way too close or ignore humans from far away. --Trougnouf 14:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough per others, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 16:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad crop, dull light, overall quality - should not be cherished with QI-badge. --Kallerna 16:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Do photos need brilliant light to be images of quality? This is not FPC, and I think we need quality images in dull light as well as resplendent light. All this is without prejudice to your other remarks. -- Ikan Kekek 05:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Not the only reason why it should not be a QI, but one of them. --Kallerna 09:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Like the horse but agree with Milseburg. --GRDN711 15:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined XRay 06:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)