Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 10 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Köhlbrand,_Hamburger_Deern,_WPAhoi,_Hamburg_(P1080553).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Barkasse "Hamburger Deern" on Köhlbrand in Hamburg --MB-one 12:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Vengolis 15:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Background is cluttered and detracts from ship. --GRDN711 03:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support True, but fine for me as a photo of the ship with background. -- Ikan Kekek 13:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral At first glance the picture is beautiful. But the background is too "restless" so that the shape of the ship can hardly be seen. -- Spurzem 17:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As the background interacts badly with the ship it is making it hard to detect the shape of the ship. --Augustgeyler (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • weak  Support per Ikan. --Smial 23:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 06:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • weak  Support The background is unfortunate, but this is QI and not Nobel Prize of photography. --Aristeas 10:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Aristeas: It is a clear rule of QI that backgrounds should not be distracting. Nobody told anything about a Nobel Prize... --Augustgeyler 11:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, it's a rule, unless you consider the photo to be of x-plus-background. -- Ikan Kekek 18:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have to agree that in this case the background crashes into the outline of the boat too severely, making it feel like hard work to pick out the shape of just the boat. --Bobulous 16:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think so too.--Peulle 21:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is good enough for QI.--Ermell 22:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 01:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Piaggio_P.166,_ILA_2018,_Schoenefeld_(1X7A5322).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Piaggio P.16 at ILA 2018 --MB-one 12:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Vengolis 15:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The oil splotch on the pavement; the light fixture coming out of the fuselage; the nose of the aircraft running into people all could have been avoided by moving to the right or left. --GRDN711 16:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I also disagree for the same reasons mentioned by GRD711--Neb.st 02:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support The plane is well photographed and these normal background elements don't bother me. -- Ikan Kekek 13:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral There is not enough contrast between the white plane and the white parts of the background. For me it is no QI. -- Spurzem 17:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 06:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With GRDN711 and Spurzem. --Augustgeyler 11:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Christian Ferrer 16:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 19:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

File:First_Baptist_Church,_Worcester_Massachusetts.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination First Baptist Church, Worcester Massachusetts. 111 Park Ave. Opened 1939. --Kzirkel 13:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 06:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too strong perspective distortion and burned highlights in the red leaves. --Augustgeyler 08:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the red leaves are indeed totally oversaturated. I would reduce the saturation of the red tones there. This cannot recover the lost details in the leaves, but overall the photo would look more natural. --Aristeas (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 19:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Neurothemis_tullia06039.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Neurothemis tullia --Vengolis 01:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Isn't it underexposed? --Podzemnik 00:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes it is. --Augustgeyler 10:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I have no way of knowing whether this is underexposed; it's certainly plausible-looking and the dragonfly is very sharp. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 19:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz 04:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too dark. Charlesjsharp 12:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan Kekek. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition, and detail is very sharp even at 100%. Composition is good, depth of field is ideal. It doesn't feel underexposed to me: the gloomy feel matches what I'd expect to experience if this was in the shade. --Bobulous 16:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)