Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 21 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Wilsons_Promontory_National_Park_(AU),_Squeaky_Beach_Walk_Way_--_2019_--_1640.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Squeaky Beach Walk Way in Wilsons Promontory National Park, Victoria, Australia --XRay 04:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but considering the equipment something must have gone wrong. This image is missing sharpness. --PtrQs 23:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    •  Comment I still see no improvement in sharpness. But 'The somewhat shallow depth of field can be considered the photographer's creative choice.' is worth reading. --PtrQs 01:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question PtrQs, did you mean to post an opposing vote? -- Ikan Kekek 07:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 Comment Yes, but my german 'Howto' says to do this after the moving by the bot. --PtrQs 23:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 Comment - Really? I find that confusing. -- Ikan Kekek 04:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 Comment Ikan Kekek I remember you had a babel box with 'de', so you'll understand: 'Du kannst ein Bild hierher verschieben, wenn Du die Entscheidung des Rezensenten anfechten möchtest oder Du Zweifel an seiner Berechtigung hast (in diesem Fall wird ein 'oppose' angenommen). Bitte erläuter auf jeden Fall Deine Gründe. Unser QICBot wird es für Dich bewegen. Wenn der Bot es bewegt, musst Du möglicherweise die Nominierung erneut prüfen und Deine Rezension in das Format Consensual Review bringen sowie "votes" hinzufügen.' Maybe the common process has developed and the howto/rules should be adapted. --PtrQs (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 Comment - I have just beginning-level German (in practice, I'm intermediate in conversation), but I put this through Google Translate without trouble. I always put in an opposing vote when I change the status to "Discuss", though. I'm not sure what the English instructions say. -- Ikan Kekek 01:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall slightly blurry, DOF too shallow, bright parts burnt. Greetings --Dirtsc 08:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Support OK after improvement. --Dirtsc 11:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment If the slight overexposure/burnt highlights on the wooden path is fixed, I'd support. The somewhat shallow depth of field can be considered the photographer's creative choice. --Smial 12:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Just improved the image (sharpness, highlights). The bright areas left and right of the walkway is nearly white sand. But it's improved too. Thank you. --XRay 05:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe my TFT is not sufficient for an exact evaluation, but I have now tried to compare the oldest and the newest image version pixel by pixel and cannot see a significant improvement in exposure and contrast. Therefore, I remain with  Neutral.--Smial 09:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 23:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)