Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 16 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Balearica_regulorum_@_KL.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Grey-crowned crane (Balearica regulorum) --GerifalteDelSabana 14:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The top crop is really unfortunate --Poco a poco 07:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • What do others think? This one is really a matter of taste imho. --GerifalteDelSabana 12:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Poco a poco - the composition is spoiled with crop. Also image very noised -- George Chernilevsky 10:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Afraid so. You had plenty of room at the bottom, so there's no excuse for cutting off parts of the head's feathers.--Peulle 20:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 20:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:The_procession_of_the_Noble_Contrada_"Oca_(Goose)"._Siena,_Italy.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The procession of the Noble Contrada "Oca (Goose)" in Siena --Ввласенко 08:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeSorry, the out of focus flag in the foreground ruins the composition. --MB-one 18:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support due to the nice composition. --Palauenc05 07:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good use of low DOF, very good lighting. Focus neár perfect. --Smial 07:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 20:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Bochumer_Hütte_2017.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Bochumer Hut in the Kitzbühel Alps --Milseburg 10:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment How about the perspective?--Peulle 11:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    •  Info Thanks for the hint. I´ve uploaded a new version. --Milseburg 12:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC) ***Peulle? --Milseburg 17:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks, but I wasn't referring to the verticals, but the barrel distortion. Surely the hut doesn't actually look like that with the round planks bulging upwards?--Peulle 11:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
          •  Info Well, I started a third attempt.--Milseburg 12:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Well the planks are still curved.--Peulle 19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
              •  Info 4th version is online now. The shooting location is noticeably below the hut. So this seems to be a challenge. I think it´s good enough for QI now. Don´t forget to refresh your cache. --Milseburg 13:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
                •  Oppose I appreciate the work, but I think it's time to decline this now. The barrel distortion is still clear as the planks are curving.--Peulle 09:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it is lens distortion. Can usually be repaired .--Famberhorst 17:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that's an exaggerated one-way accuracy for a QI nomination. Feel free to do better. I resign myself to straighten out all the planks and distorting anything else. --Milseburg 21:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Barrel distortion does not explain why some parts of the roof are perfectly straight, others not. The building seems to be bended. Somewhat harsh lighting, but good sharpness and colours appear natural. --Smial 08:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Vote removed after compare with other images of same building. --Smial 08:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 20:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Obernberg_am_Brenner_-_Scheune_-BT-_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Alpine barn near Obernberg am Brenner (Unterreinsalm). Tyrol, Austria --Basotxerri 16:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice.--Famberhorst 16:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for discussion; it is nice, but isn't it a derivative version of this image? Practice here is that only one version of the same image can be a QI - is this the one you're going for, rather than the colour one?--Peulle 16:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment First of all, I haven't nominated yet the other version of the image, so why can't I nominate this one? The other thing is that some months ago, I moved some of Famberhorst's B&W images to CR for the same reason. However noone here could indicate where the rule was written down that different versions of an image couldn't be QI at the same time. So I suggest that it should be added to the rules. Meanwhile, nominating different versions seems OK to me. --Basotxerri 07:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support See above. --XRay 13:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per Basotxerri, and nice too. Different crops and color schemes should be allowed; if a rule is made, I suggest no max number of crops, but a limit based on reasonability, as well as a maximum of two color schemes i.e. normal color+BnW. --GerifalteDelSabana 04:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support No problem with our rules and good quality -- George Chernilevsky 15:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 20:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:2017-11-20_(227)_Electricity_pylon_in_Pottenbrunn.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Electricity pylon in Pottenbrunn, Austria. --GT1976 06:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality, Tournasol7 06:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Tilted. --Basotxerri 16:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I like --Billy69150 11:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I see no lack. -- Spurzem 13:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 06:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)