Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 02 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Locomotive_VL80K-198_2019_G1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination VL80K-198 electric locomotive (1) -- George Chernilevsky 20:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Image could be stronger if you cropped it tighter, similar to your File:Locomotive ChS4-061 2019 G2.jpg. --GRDN711 22:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I prefer crop "as is" for show not only locomotive -- George Chernilevsky 04:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Not a quality problem imo.--ArildV 06:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 Comment A tighter crop would be better as I think too. You must not show a house if the image is called Locomotive ChS4-061. -- Spurzem 16:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted Seven Pandas 01:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_la_Santa_Trinidad,_Riga,_Letonia,_2012-08-07,_DD_01.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Holy Trinity Cathedral, Riga, Latvia --Poco a poco 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Neutral The cross at the top is very out of focus / distorted. I know that it is hard to get this right, but in this form, it just isn't a QI for me, sorry. --Domob 08:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that it is unavoidable and I've seen worse cases become QI, can we please discuss it? --Poco a poco 07:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure, with a perspective like that and a tall church, it is definitely hard (or maybe impossible) to get the very top in good quality. Besides the cross itself, all looks good. Let's see what others say, I've changed my vote to neutral, as this is indeed just a tiny detail overall. --Domob 07:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Worse images were promoted and became "quality" ones? - it's a weak argument. It only means that there's something wrong with the promotion system. I also disagree with the point that it's impossible or even very hard to get a high quality picture top to bottom in this situation. There are various ways, like focus stacking or using T-S lens, for example. Still, I believe the image is good overall, it represents its subject well, much better, in fact, than any other image in the category. Therefore, in my opinion, it deserves the promotion. Stoxastikos 10:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support As Stoxastikos. Greetings --Dirtsc 08:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others. --Manfred Kuzel 16:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support It is actually impossible to get the top sharp without tilt-shift. The edges could be very sharp on the original capture, but when perspective correction is applied the top is stretched so what you're seeing is actually an upsampled version of the original. You could of course downsample everything to improve apparent sharpness in the worst parts but then that robs resolution in the lower parts. -- King of Hearts 03:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Lineated_Barbet_(দাগি_বসন্তবৌরি)_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination lineated barbet at National Botanical Garden of Bangladesh. By User:Nafis Ameen --RockyMasum 22:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment: Auch wenn es sich hier offenbar um ein Handy-Foto mit geringer Auflösung handelt, sollte meiner Meinung nach das Schwergewicht der Beurteilung auf der Besonderheit des Motives liegen. Daher bin ich geneigt, das Foto als  Support QI zu qualifizieren. --Manfred Kuzel 04:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too grainy considering the fairly low resolution, IMO.--Peulle 11:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Ich finde das Foto auch sehr gut. Offensichtlich wird hier inwischen mehr Wert auf die Qualität (und den Preis) der Kamera gelegt als auf die Bildgestaltung. Diese Entwicklung ist bedenklich. -- Spurzem 15:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Even with lower res, this is a good quality image. --GRDN711 17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened while just meeting the minimum resolution for QI. --Smial 00:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice shot overall, but as per the others, the quality is just not good to me. Too grainy, especially near the edges. --Domob 07:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support It's not an easy casual shot. I believe that obvious technical shortcomings mentioned above are outweighed by authors patience and a good eye for a subject. Stoxastikos 10:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Sveta_Sofia_Church,_Sofia_(P1070749).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sveta Sofia Church, Sofia, Bulgaria --MB-one 07:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI disagree. It's leaining out. --Tournasol7 21:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment should be fixed now. --MB-one 16:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
     SupportGood quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 03:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Jetzt kippt die Kirche nicht mehr zur Seite; vorhin war's meines Erachtens trotz senkrechter Linien noch nicht fixed. Wenn die Bearbeitung aber nicht gefällt, bitte zurücksetzen. Im Übrigen wundere ich mich immer wieder, welche Fotos manche Leute misslungen finden und welche ihnen gefallen. -- Spurzem 15:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support It's good now, thank you for your correction. Tournasol7 04:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Hart-Aschendorf_Weinbau_Pamperl_Eingangsbereich.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Eingangsbereich zum Weingut Pamperl in Hart-Aschendorf (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose I think it's too soft. Also, the object is cut down the bottom, I wish you put your camera a bit more down --Podzemnik 20:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
     Comment: Siehst Du denn nicht, daß unten ein Objekt im Wege steht? Hätte ich die Kamera “a bit more down” gehalten, dann wäre der dunkle Fleck unten “a bit more bigger”. --Manfred Kuzel 05:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Manchmal lassen es die äußeren Umstände nicht zu, ein Qualitätsbild zu machen. Das ist zwar schade, aber wir müssen es hinnehmen. -- Spurzem 22:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 Comment: Danke für den Kommentar, mit dem ich ja konform gehe, Spurzem. Ich wollte nur darauf hinweisen, daß es die Situation nur noch verschlechtert hätte, wenn ich die Kamera tiefer gehalten hätte. --Manfred Kuzel 16:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp, bad lighting. --Smial 00:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Podzemnik.--Peulle 19:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Agraulis_vanillae_vanillae_caterpillar_on_passiflora_leaf.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Caterpillar on leaf. --Filo gèn' 05:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support
    Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 05:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Insufficient quality for me --Podzemnik 03:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
     Support - Unless that leaf is colossal, I consider the quality sufficient. -- Ikan Kekek 06:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Unsharp, grainy. --Kallerna 07:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
     Support At least at 2 MP good enough. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Grainy, details missing. Sorry. May be better taken with a camera instead of a smartphone. --XRay 08:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Not very concrete, not the best composition. --Nefronus 22:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 01:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Long-billed_startthroat_(Heliomaster_longirostris_longirostris)_in_flight.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Long-billed startthroat (Heliomaster longirostris longirostris) in flight, Panama --Charlesjsharp 08:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support - Considering it's a hummingbird in flight, good quality! -- Ikan Kekek 12:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Hummingbirds are technically challenging to photograph but most of the bird is not sharp and lacks separation from the background. Not Qi. --GRDN711 15:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    New version uploaded GRDN711 Charlesjsharp 11:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 Comment @Charlesjsharp - Like the work you did in lightening the bird for better separation. Unfortunately, the lack of sharpness issue remains, not just in the wings and tail but also in the head and eye. IMO not QI but let others comment. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Adequate quality given the challenges. -- King of Hearts 03:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Prunkwinde_IMG_2955.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Purpur-Prunkwinde, auch als Prachtwinde bekannt, Rheinland-Pfalz, Deutschland.--Fischer.H 16:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Lacks sharpness. Sorry, --Ermell 06:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
     SupportNot sure if this is a QI overall, but sharpness-wise it seems fine to me. --Pro2 11:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose The colors seem strange to me (the flower is too dark at the center and the top), there is something like HDR artifact around the flower.--Nefronus (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 01:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)