Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 26 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Kostel_narození_Panny_Marie,_Orlová_09.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in Orlová, Czech Republic --T.Bednarz 19:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good composition and good quality but no good description -- Spurzem 19:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted to the right --A.Savin 22:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin --Basotxerri 16:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I try very hard but I see no lack. -- Spurzem 22:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 18:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Male_Euphagus_cyanocephalus_on_picnic_table_at_Año_Nuevo_State_Reserve.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A male Brewer's blackbird, Euphagus cyanocephalus, perched on a picnic table near the parking lot at Año Nuevo State Reserve. --Grendelkhan 23:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose IMO not sharp enough, sorry. --Basotxerri 16:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good composition, sharp enough for me. Please discuss -- Spurzem 22:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Indeed a good composition, but considering that according to w:Brewer's blackbird, this species is 200–260 mm long, not sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 07:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 11:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me and funny, too. One of a good black angry bird. Gibt andere Sachen die zur Perfektion fehlen. Noise at bokeh, könnte man ruhiger gestalten und ich wundere mich das ein Sterling so ein Wuchtbrummer ist. Wär´s ein Mädchen hätte ich den Hals vorteilhafter gestaltet. Hab schon schlechteres hier gesehen, bin aber sicher kein Birdie-Guy, habe ja schon mit Reifen so mein Thema...--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 19:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 20:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Painting_of_Saint_Antony_infant_and_father_San_Antone_church_Urtijëi.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Antony of Padua infant claims his father Antony church in Urtijëi. --Moroder 16:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unsharp, sorry. --Peulle 16:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The image is not very sharp but I can not say that it is unsharp. More disturbing is the shadow. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I must agree with Peulle. Unfortunately image is unsharp and that kind of flow can't be fixed. --Halavar 19:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too unsharp, just take a tripod and the painting does not run away. --Michielverbeek 08:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Of course it's taken with a tripod and delayed shutter release with exposure time 5/1 sec and a 150 mm lense. I don't even think its not sharp but there are plenty of pixelpeepers ;- --Moroder 17:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC))
    • Sorry for my harsh words. I have made one time before this kind of photo and it was extremely sharp (but also too yellowish). It might work if you increase your ISO to 400? and reduce the f-value to 5? --Michielverbeek 18:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Unsharp, and considering the size of the painting, don't you think pixel-peeping is appropriate? -- Ikan Kekek 20:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    •  Comment Yes I thanks it’s appropriate. Size of the painting? What has it to do with the pixels?--Moroder 20:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That since it's the only subject of the photo, it needs to be sharp, clear and detailed. The standard all photos of paintings are up against now is the one established by photos put out by museums and some of the huge Google Art Project images. Of course it's completely unnecessary for a QI to be anywhere near that large, detailed and sharp, but it does still have to be quite sharp to be a QI, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 22:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 20:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Stevia_Muntijela_inviern_da_Secëda_Gherdëina_.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Muntijela mountain in the Stevia group, Puez-Geisler Nature Park, Dolomites UNESCO World Heritage Site. --Moroder 20:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Nice scene, but the noted partial erasure at bottom needs to be fixed Support now --Daniel Case 19:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've fixed it but unfortunately it does not work on the thumbnail --Moroder 07:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - QI. -- Ikan Kekek 20:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 06:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Tors behind Wolf Creek campsite on Firth River, Ivvavik National Park, YT.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tors on mountains near Firth River in Canada's Ivvavik National Park --Daniel Case 19:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 19:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spot in the sky, looks a bit oversharpened, too. --Basotxerri 21:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Basotxerri: Cleaned them up and tried to dull the sharpening a bit. Daniel Case 22:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Some lighter ones are left, though... --Basotxerri 16:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • {{o}} And oversaturated: Colors, especially blue, are unnatural. Overprocessed IMO--Lmbuga 03:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Sorry, I'm not sure--Lmbuga 12:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - There are a few very light dust spots in the middle/left part of the top margin, but otherwise, I think the photo is sharp enough and acceptable for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 01:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Took care of those, too. Daniel Case 04:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 06:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)