Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 02 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

==[edit]

  • Nomination Gahanna Historical Society Sign -- Sixflashphoto 00:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 01:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  OpposeUnderexposed --Granada 10:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment New Version Uploaded -- Sixflashphoto 20:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 16:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Fine, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 20:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 12:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Columbus School for Girls 2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Columbus School for Girls -- Sixflashphoto 00:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  OpposeTotally underexposed! --Granada 10:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version uploaded. -- Sixflashphoto 07:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki 14:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 16:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 12:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Moscow_Kremlin,_Eternal_flame_Alexander_Garden.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow, at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the Alexander Garden to honor the dead of the Great Patriotic War --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 08:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 12:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree - overexposed --Jacek Halicki 19:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jacek.--Ermell 14:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   ----PumpkinSky 19:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-10-31 (807) Train station platforms at Bahnhof Markersdorf an der Pielach.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Train station platforms at Bahnhof Markersdorf an der Pielach. --GT1976 14:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, Jacek, I disagree: tilted, possible needs a perspective correction and CAs on the wires on the upper right corner. --Basotxerri 19:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but the perspective is not well done and I doubt if it is repairable --Michielverbeek 22:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --PumpkinSky 19:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Bagratunyats Monument.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bagratunyats Monument in Gyumri, Armenia --Armenak Margarian 10:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 12:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not Q1 but not far away. Three Points of critic. a) I see a dust spot in the sky. b) Blue Noise (easy tune) c) most difficult issue. Not really needs perspective corr. but lens correction Anyway. I like the Colours! --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 16:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Neutral ... and the crop at the bottom should have more space. --XRay 18:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've done what I can, thank you --Armenak Margarian 18:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Could be cropped at both sides but is o.k.--Ermell 14:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 19:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Forsthaus_Keidenzell.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Forsthaus Keidenzell, Langenzenn, Cadolzburg --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 08:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 12:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective problems, overexposed --Jacek Halicki 22:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jacek. -- Ikan Kekek 09:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:HogevanqSarnaghbyur1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hogevank Monastery, Armenia --Araqangaraq 10:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 11:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. A really good Picture, and a real good base for b/w. Uplooking the hill I miss a gauge or something straight. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 17:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - The monastery looks like it's falling over. -- Ikan Kekek 09:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is somebody pushing the monastery? It needs a serious perspective correction, a correction to right --Michielverbeek 18:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --PumpkinSky 12:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:CAB17_ConciertoVisuals_Navvier_14.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Electronica band Navvier, acting during the Visuals festival, part of film festival "La Cabina" --Rafesmar 09:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Lots of chroma noise, maybe something can be done about that. Also, if you're posting an image of a band on Commons, there should be a category of said band. Or the person.--Peulle 20:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I uploaded a new version with more chroma noise reduction, though I'm not sure that it shows a noticeable improvement: maybe ISO 2000 in these conditions is taking my camera to the limit... Also, I added a category. Thanks. --Rafesmar 09:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I'm really unsure about this one, so I'd like to collect some more views at CR; on the one hand, there's noise and lack of facial detail, on the other hand, the conditions are extremely challenging so I'm unsure how much it should be emphasized. Sure looks like a VI, though.--Peulle 17:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong  Support. Though the Canon is not the very best camera in matters of noise, the image meets absolutely all QI requirements, regarding the lighting conditions. The image is sharp, well exposed, well composed, and, yes, inevitably a little noisy. --Smial 11:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see the problem here. The noise and lack of facial detail is far less than in other photos taken under similar conditions and the composition/artistic value is good enough for FP, IMO. --W.carter 11:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Weak support --Billy69150 18:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 19:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Hector_greets_Andromaca_and_Astyanax_-_Francesco_Hayez.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination :Hector_greets_Andromaca_and_Astyanax_ --Livioandronico2013 08:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 08:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ugly flare at the top and rather unsharp at the right side. A photograph of a painting can't be QI unless the lighting is perfectly even which is not the case here. Additionally there is no information about the painting given in the file description. --Code 10:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is your revenge? This is QI not FP what does composition and light mean? Anyway, it's in a museum, and if you do not know, can not you choose light. --Livioandronico2013
  •  Oppose Lots of chroma noise, detail loss when moving away from the centre.--Peulle 15:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question Where Peulle? this is taken from a museum is normal,and where are loss the details? -- Livioandronico2013 20:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment You should not take it for granted that Commons users are able to visit the page every day. However, if you use the "ping" function, a message is sent so it increases the chance of a user seeing it. As for the noise, it is particularly visible on the dark sections, such as the upper right.--Peulle 17:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Museums usually have poor light, of course do not allow flashes, and paintings are on their way to discolouring. On this ground virtually no photograph of painting could be a QI. -- Blackcat 21:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Blackcat: Indeed you may be right that it's not possible to take a QI under such conditions at all. I learned a lot about reproductive photography of artworks in the last years as a lawyer I had to defend a Commons user in court who was sued by a museum for taking such photographs and I came to the opinion that creating a true reproduction of a two-dimensional artwork requires perfect conditions that usually don't exist when you just walk around inside a museum taking snapshots of artworks. tl;dr: Sometimes you just can't create a QI. That's it. --Code 06:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Code all you boringly say is meaningless (as always). This is QI not a court or something else. The photo is well done for the conditions it is but you are infant and you do not want it to be QI.--Livioandronico2013 08:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment That crosses the rudeness line, IMO. If you want people to look at your images, the least you can do is treat them with a certain amount of respect. You can disagree with people's opinions, but there is a voting system in place here that will make your case for you; if there are more people voting in your favour than there are opposing, you win the argument.--Peulle 17:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Why would I fail to respect you Peulle? What are you talking about? I just asked you to tell me where the loss of details would be, or your parties asking for this is rude? I'm awaiting reply since you have not responded yet --Livioandronico2013 17:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I was referring to your reply to Code. And I did reply, see above.--Peulle 14:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Veiled_Dame_by_Antonio_Corradini.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Veiled Dame by Antonio Corradini --Livioandronico2013 09:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 14:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad light, bad composition. I do not understand how one can nominate something like this here. --Code 10:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you do not understand Code you will have your limits. And would this be your revenge? Silly. This is QI not FP what does composition and light mean? Anyway, it's in a museum, and if you do not know, can not you choose light or composition? --Livioandronico2013 20:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm on the fence here; the sharpness is pretty decent but the right crop is too wide (fixable). The lighting is a problem; why is the bottom lit so much brighter than the top? It looks like there was a lamp standing on the floor, illuminating from the bottom. What was the case here?--Peulle 17:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Simply a window Peulle, this is QI the photo must be detailed not in perfect light or composition, that is FP.--Livioandronico2013 17:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • However ✓ Done crop --Livioandronico2013 18:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Not perfect, but good enough for QI, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 10:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, with the new crop I can go along with that.--Peulle 09:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 12:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)