Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 04 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Butterfly_06652.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Jamides celeno --Vengolis 01:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 03:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It looks underexposed to me. Please discuss --Podzemnik 00:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes it is underexposed and has a low level of detail due to strong cropping and noise reduction. --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 12:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

File:2017-09-08_AVIAQ_ITTUK_-_MMSI_331010000_at_Narsaq_Harbor,_Greenland.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Diskoline passenger ship, AVIAQ ITTUK, in Narsaq Harbor, Greenland. --GRDN711 17:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose slightly out of focus, sorry --Virtual-Pano 18:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Jakubhal 21:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality! -- Spurzem 21:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough at a large enough size, IMO, and a nice photo. -- Ikan Kekek 22:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With Virtual-Pano. The ship is simply and sadly not in focus. --Augustgeyler 09:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Upper crop.
  • PLEASE SIGN YOUR VOTE! --Augustgeyler 23:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Upper crop. Thanks for the hint. --MB-one 16:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan Kekek -- George Chernilevsky 03:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 23:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. -- Johann Jaritz 04:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Kościelec_view_7.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view towards Mały Kozi Wierch from Kościelec, Tatra National Park, Zakopane, Poland. --Kallerna 11:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 14:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The snow is overexposed in the middle and below. --A.Savin 15:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree Savin. Seven Pandas 20:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support It is true that the exposure was a little rich, but the colours remained natural. There are no falsifying colour shifts, as is very often seen, for example, in overexposed clouds or in overexposed blue skies. Very nice image composition with attractive lighting and good sharpness. --Smial 10:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 05:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. -- Johann Jaritz 04:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Vista_de_Praia_da_Vitória_desde_miradouro_do_Facho,_isla_de_Terceira,_Azores,_Portugal,_2020-07-24,_DD_68-76_PAN.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Praia da Vitória from miradouro do Facho, Terceira Island, Azores, Portugal --Poco a poco 07:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not yet. Curved downward on the very right side. The horizon goes well below the sea horizon there. --Milseburg 19:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    Milseburg ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 19:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Asmodea Oaktree 20:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Yes. --Milseburg 09:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfecto. -- Johann Jaritz 04:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Klosterstraße_30_(Sex-Shop)_Hof_20201027_DSC5220.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sex shop in Hof (Saale) in HDR. --PantheraLeo1359531 22:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
 Oppose Insufficient quality. Car distracting --Wilfredor 23:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 Support Looks like a QI to me, it's sharp enough, the perspective is right, the car is typical of a street scene (which is what's mentioned in the description, not specifically the sex shop it's partially blocking, though it would be better to categorize it and ideally identify it) and it's not even cropped. It doesn't seem to warrant the HDR processing but more work is never an issue as long as it doesn't result in artifacts. --Trougnouf 14:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Cats concerning car added --PantheraLeo1359531 17:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks fine, except that the light is so dull. It was really so dark at 12:37? -- Ikan Kekek 08:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed. --Kallerna 09:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looking at the file history one can clearly see that it was shot with overexposure and than afterwards edited improperly. So now it is underexposed. But the goal should have been to only darken the sky and not the hole frame. --Augustgeyler 11:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Image brightened (except the sky) --PantheraLeo1359531 20:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It improved. --Augustgeyler 22:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you really think, it is dark? Yes, that was a quite cloudy day, so the sky seems realistic depicted IMO :) --PantheraLeo1359531 19:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)\
  •  Support OK. -- Ikan Kekek 04:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Smial 10:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The car spoils it for me. --Palauenc05 23:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. -- Johann Jaritz 04:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Arthur's_Pass_Train_Station,_Arthur's_Pass_National_Park,_New_Zealand.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Arthur's Pass Train Station, Arthur's Pass National Park, --Podzemnik 05:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I am sorry, this is a wonderful composition with a very good lighting. But it is too soft. Shutter 1/50 might have been too long. --Augustgeyler 21:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. -- Johann Jaritz 05:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose for now: A little soft, and looks undersaturated except for the red and yellow objects (not including the orange crane) and possibly the blue ones. -- Ikan Kekek 08:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral looks like a very slight camera shake IMO. That sometimes happen to me at 200 mm, even with my tripod. Christian Ferrer 15:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Out of focus --Wilfredor 23:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Rote_Moschee_IMG_1371.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rote Moschee im Schloßgarten von Schwetzingen, ehemalige Sommerresidenz der Kurfürsten von der Pfalz, Baden-Würtemberg, Deutschland. --Fischer.H 17:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Some noise reduction necessary at the top. --Ermell 21:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Good quality. --Moroder 08:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (provisional) per Ermell. --MB-one 22:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I like this better than another one of this motif that you recently nominated, but is the green oversaturated? -- Ikan Kekek 08:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Is this downsized? --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downsized.--Peulle 12:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support acceptable IMO Christian Ferrer 09:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is downsized and has a very low level of detail. --Augustgeyler 10:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unacceptable level of detail (especially grass) for a 3.8 MP image. --King of Hearts 06:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Cape_May_Lighthouse_September_2020_001.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cape May Lighthouse. --King of Hearts 19:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Lighthouse not really focused and distracting crop --Virtual-Pano 10:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment How exactly is it not in focus? I was about a mile away so it could be a bit of atmospheric turbulence. And what's wrong with the crop? In any case this is not FPC and I don't see any clear mistakes in the composition. --King of Hearts 04:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have placed notes to highlight the focus topic - You labeled the frame 'Cape May lighthouse' but it covers less than 5% of the frame - sorry for the late reply --Virtual-Pano 21:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have gone for an artistic composition; photos don't always have to be plain representations of the subject. And I believe the DOF is very much sufficient for QI, especially on a 24 MP image. Anyways, I will seek another opinion. --King of Hearts 02:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per nominator. Looks like atmospheric turbulence. Nice composition. --Smial 10:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I like the idea of a short DOF. The tower is in focus, or close to be. --Augustgeyler 10:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DOF field and label/crop issues as above - If the tire tracks and lighthouse (which is one mile away) would be in focus how could the scrubs and bushes to the left of the lighthouse be out of focus? --Virtual-Pano (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Pano --Palauenc05 21:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too dark, unnecessary b&w. --Kallerna 09:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral focus and DoF are ok IMO, but I think it's too dark. Christian Ferrer 09:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me.--Ermell 09:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Christian Ferrer and Kallerna: Brightened. Also, I think the choice to make something B&W is a subjective factor which is valid to discuss at FPC, but there is nothing in COM:IG suggesting that it is a reason to oppose at QIC. --King of Hearts 17:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support the ping did not work for me (as often in the QI candidates page), by chance I saw the update. OK now. Christian Ferrer 18:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. --Aristeas 12:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 12:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)