Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 07 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Metro_MSK_Line5_Novoslobodskaya.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Novoslobodskaya Station of Moscow Subway --Florstein 12:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose An excellent composition, but absolutely not sharp enough, sorry no Q1one --Michielverbeek 15:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Absolutely not sharp at full resolition at 15MP? And what about 5MP? I'm not sure that you are guided by right criteria. Otherwise, show me the better image taken with similar conditions. --Florstein 18:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Florstein: I'm judging QI at 100% scale, as many other reviewers here (otherwise no one would care about CA and sharpness). What is the point of full 15 Mp if it doesn't adds more details ? Please, look at the lightbox near the center of this image. Probably it would be sharp at 5 Mp, but of course it's more useful for Commons to have this full-size image as non-QI than QI with just 5 Mp. --Shansov.net 08:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Shansov.net: Depth of field at f4 on my Sigma 10-20 lenses doesn't allow to make sharp lightboxes. Alas. But stained glasses are okay here. :) --Florstein 13:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DOF, noise. Use of a tripod recommended for better results. -- Smial 13:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Tripod usage costs $200 per hour there and usually not considered. --Shansov.net 14:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The image can still be put to COM:VIC. -- Smial 15:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Shansov.net: is it you who said "it's more useful for Commons to have this full-size image"? when I see the size of this one, I guess @Florstein: should downsample his images to just above 3mpx to have the QI seal, following your exemple...--Christian Ferrer 05:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: Yes, I did. Full-size image is more useful for Commons, but pixel-level sharp image is needed for QI. Those two are different requirements for different goals. For example, when I uploaded full-size File:Ya_Ly_dam_spillway,_Vietnam.png it was declined, but when I take measures to ensure pixel-level sharpness, pictures are promoted. I learned the lesson :) Also sometimes I'm uploading full-size images too, if they are taken by a non-bayer camera and are naturally sharp. --Shansov.net 22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: thanks for a hint, Christian! May be someday I'll upload downsampled to 5mpx version of this photo and nominate it again. I'm sure: this new crystal clear image will gain QI seal with success. :) --Florstein 12:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • To be a harsh reviewer is one thing but some people should apply to themselves what they ask to others.... --Christian Ferrer 12:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think that I'm not applying same criteria to myself? I do. --Shansov.net 22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Because you said "it's more useful for Commons to have this full-size image as non-QI than QI with just 5 Mp." But I see you don't apply this sentence yourself, see File:Bạc Liêu windpower farm.jpg Christian Ferrer 06:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that's just because my goal is different. My main criteria is uploading pictures useful for wikipedia and until 4K becomes mainstream that's more than enough. --Shansov.net 08:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 14:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Ba-brynchagi-church-2001-august.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Transfiguration church in Brynchagi village. Maybe the hue is wrong? I may make it less purple... --Бахтиёр Абдуллаев 09:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose good compo and light, but poor sharpness --A.Savin 14:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment This was scanned from film. Changed to discuss so to hear about the hue. --Бахтиёр Абдуллаев 18:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you want to discuss about the hue, photography critiques is a better place. --C messier 10:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I would like to see the image without blurring noise (resp. film grain) reduction. -- Smial 13:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 10:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Manduel_-_Borne_milliaire_d'Antonin-le-Pieux.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination milestone of Antoninus Pius, near by Manduel's town hall. --Marianne Casamance 14:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Interesting and high value, but main subject unsharp, sorry.--Jebulon 14:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 Comment sorry, it's not unsharp, the column is only dirty. it's still has 2000 years! --Marianne Casamance
 Comment Désolé, mon Antonin le Pieux à moi il a aussi 2000 ans, et il n'est pas flou ! Envoie en discussion, on verra l'opinion des autres. Tant mieux s'ils te suivent. Amitiés.--Jebulon 17:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main subject out of focus. --C messier 11:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 10:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:MosMetro_Aeroport_platform_01-2016.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Moscow Metro, Aeroport station. By A.Savin --Florstein 08:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image is noisy and not sharp enough --Shansov.net 12:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support a very little noise but sharp enough --Christian Ferrer 17:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 10:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Metro_MSK_Line9_Savyolovskaya_(img2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Savyolovskaya Station of Moscow Subway --Florstein 07:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support good quality. --Ermell 08:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image is too noisy, parts of image are blurred. --Shansov.net 12:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me --A.Savin 14:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 17:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 18:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support, somewhat better than the other images. Still a bit blurry. --Smial 15:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 14:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Metro_MSK_Line9_Timiryazevskaya.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Timiryazevskaya Station of Moscow Subway --Florstein 07:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image is noisy and not sharp. --Shansov.net 12:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 18:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 10:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Cruz de Gorbea 01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gorbea mountain, summit cross, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 19:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Seems to me like the noise suppression has gone too far --A.Savin 15:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO, detailed enough. --C messier 22:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI --Milseburg 12:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred, as for A.Savin, and probably afterwards oversharpened. -- Smial 14:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as for Smial and A.Savin --Lmbuga 16:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 19:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Australopithecus_sediba.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination The cranium of Malapa hominid 1 (MH1) from South Africa, named "Karabo". The combined fossil remains of this juvenile male is designated as the holotype for Australopithecus sediba. By User:Nicolas Perrault III --Shizhao 01:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Whitebalance not convincing - too much orange. Elsewhere good. --Cccefalon 04:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment IMHO, the colours are accurate enough for an object buried in soil for more than a million years. --C messier 14:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment I am not talking about the colour of the object but about the colour that the tungsten light is causing with the skull. --Cccefalon 11:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO, reasonable colors. --C messier 22:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Colour ont the teeth looks correct. So I assume it's the same for the rest of the skull.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 13:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Other version with yellows and oranges less saturated sould be better IMO. It's a good picture--Lmbuga 16:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 19:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Miguel,_Almazán,_Soria,_España,_2015-12-29,_DD_67.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Church of San Miguel, Almazán, Soria, Spain --Poco a poco 14:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Milseburg 16:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Very nice in matters of composition, sharpness, etc. But rather strong clipping in red colour channel due to the lighting. --Smial 16:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jebulon 10:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 18:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Lmbuga 16:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 14:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)