Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 05 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:MilitaryCemeteryUkanc06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination From 1915 to 1917, the Cemetery in Ukanc was mainly used for Austro-Hungarian soldiers killed in the Krn mountain range. Many soldiers were of Hungarian nationality. --Miha Peče 12:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry! Not sharp enough. --Steindy 18:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree. Front Window is in focus. --Miha Peče 19:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good use of depth of field per the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek 05:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

* Weak support The detail on the metal grid is somewhat lacking, but overall it’s a good photo. --Nefronus 12:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak  Support Somewhat agressive noise reduction, otherwise good. -- Smial 13:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left vertical lines are not straight. Agressive noise reduction: Not sharp enough. Avoidable (improvable) horizontal distortion IMO--Lmbuga 03:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I change my vote per Lmbuga. --Nefronus 07:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

File:2020_year._Herbarium._Oak._img-007.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Oak. Leaf adaxial side. --Knopik-som 01:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Insufficient DoF --Tagooty 02:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
     Support DoF good enough for me. Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
     Support ok for me --Uoaei1 04:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
     Support Meets the requirements ––Александр Байдуков 20:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose low DOF and unsharp. Seven Pandas 22:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support--Lmbuga 03:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

File:White-tailed_eagle_in_flight_at_Falkenhof_Schloss_Rosenburg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) in flight, Falkenhof Schloss Rosenburg, Germany --Carsten Steger 16:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Sorry, but the wings are cutted. --Steindy 18:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
     Comment The intention of this photo was to capture the head of the eagle in flight in as much detail as possible -- Carsten Steger 19:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
     Support Good eyes and IMO good composition--Lmbuga 22:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Lmbuga.--Ermell 08:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Steindy. --Fischer.H 16:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Per Lmbuga (detail could be better and the beak looks a bit overexposed, but since it’s a flight photo, I think it’s good enough). --Nefronus 12:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Lmbuga. --Smial 16:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Lmbuga. --Knopik-som 13:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of the reformed church in Langnau, Switzerland --Domob 13:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Light range too much. Windows and benches on the right are overexposed. --Tagooty 05:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
     Comment Yes indeed, unfortunately there is nothing I can do about it; even my darkest exposure has these small areas overexposed already. I think the picture could still be QI since the areas are small and most of the picture worked out quite well under this extreme dynamic range (the sun was shining right through the central windows), but this is your call. --Domob 08:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
     Support Everything is very good except for the burned areas. It would certainly be better to take the photo on a cloudy day. But in the end I think it’s good enough. It can be taken to the discussion if needed… --Nefronus 19:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose Light range too much. Windows and benches on the right are overexposed. --Tagooty 02:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Nefronus and Domob's comments. -- Ikan Kekek 06:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Dluga_2_in_Bydgoszcz_(1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Building at Dluga 2 in Bydgoszcz, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland. --Tournasol7 06:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment If you pull it apart a bit, it looks more natural. On the right side, something sticks out into the frame. --Ermell 22:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too significant perspective correction for me, the building looks like having no roof, sorry. --Nefronus 08:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, perspective is ok for me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yes, the perspective is a matter of taste. --Aristeas 17:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

File:St. Luke the Evangelist - Pacecco de Rosa.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: St. Luke the Evangeslist - Pacecco de Rosa --Commonists 18:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpening artefacts everywhere, and in upper parts also some chromatic noise. --A.Savin 22:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A. Savin. --Nefronus 06:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • New --Commonists 12:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The new version is much better. --Palauenc05 21:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per A. Savin.--Lmbuga 13:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The new version is OK. --Aristeas 06:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 09:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

File:The_Fat_Bull,_Ashton-in-Makerfield.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Closed pub on the A49 Warrington Road opposite St Thomas's church, Ashton-in-Makerfield. --Rodhullandemu 18:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Steindy 21:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    Better? Rodhullandemu 06:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me.--Ermell 07:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Aristeas 17:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Manchester_Row,_Vulcan_Village_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View north along Manchester Row, Vulcan Village from Wargrave Road --Rodhullandemu 08:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Chromatic abberation in the shadow part. --Steindy 22:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    Where? Rodhullandemu 06:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support, as it looks OK to me, pending Steindy's reply. -- Ikan Kekek 07:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment I think you'll wait a while. Steindy seems to be a "fly-by" objector who just tanks nominations without reconsidering potential improvements. He's certainly supported subsequent nominations without reconsidering this one. Maybe he's just too busy. Rodhullandemu 22:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
      •  Comment Steindy has now annotated the image. Call me a blind, wizened old fool, but I just can't see it. Can anyone else? And if it's in shadow, how much does it matter? Rodhullandemu 18:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I thought he might be referring to something like that. I'm not convinced they're aberrations, but I also don't care per Aristeas' remarks. -- Ikan Kekek 19:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support CAs hardly visible. --Palauenc05 08:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I see these CAs ;–), but IMHO they are really minor and not irritating. --Aristeas 15:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I see some chroma noise, not relevant CA. This can be improved with suitable tools, such as NeatImage, which is probably also available for Photoshop or has even been integrated into it in the meantime. --Smial 13:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

File:AUT_vs._TUR_2016-03-29_(383).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Çağlar Söyüncü, footballplaer of Turkey. --Steindy 21:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Poor composition, crop to left, slightly wider shot would have been better. Rodhullandemu 21:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Let's hear other votes please. --Steindy 22:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per User:Rodhullandemu. --Nefronus 19:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support But the face is in the middle.--Ermell 07:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support And there is lead room on the right. --Aristeas 17:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Crops might not be ideal, but what a facial expression! Good portrait, overall, in my opinion, and in context, I think the crops are good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 17:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Aristeas, esp. the aspect of a 'lead room'. --Palauenc05 12:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Skazsky_gorge_near_the_alpine_camp._View_in_the_north-west_direction.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Skazsky gorge near the alpine camp. View in the north-west direction. North Ossetian Reserve: North Ossetia. Russia --Александр Байдуков 03:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The detail looks posterized, sorry. --Nefronus 07:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree --Moroder 02:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Nefronus, could you please specify where I should be seeing posterization? I'm not seeing it. -- Ikan Kekek 16:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I’ve added two notes into the image. Nefronus 17:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks. I see what you're talking about. I think this still might be a QI, but it's hard for me to avoid concentrating on the details now, perhaps to the detriment of the effect of the whole, so I'll wait until at least tomorrow before looking again. -- Ikan Kekek 06:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Nefronus. I have no idea which sharpening and which denoising algorithm has struck here, but the image looks badly overprocessed in large parts. --Smial 12:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 20:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Ermell 07:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Palauenc05 and Ermell --GRDN711 16:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Cygne_tuberculé_juvénile_(Cygnus_olor)_(27).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Juvenile mute swan (Cygnus olor) in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 09:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose one bird facing away --Charlesjsharp 21:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice photograph. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Charlesjsparp + there should be more space on the right with the bird heading there (not well composed)… Nefronus 06:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 09:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Nefronus --Lmbuga 22:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The objections against the composition are correct, but IMHO for QI the photo is still OK. --Aristeas 07:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support If you slightly crop in to get rid of the downs, I'll support. --MB-one 20:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Cropping. Gzen92 08:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Significantly better after the crop. Nefronus 21:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Nefronus - I think it's good enough now. -- Ikan Kekek 05:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Nefronus--Lmbuga 13:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per MB-one --GRDN711 15:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 9 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)