Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 18 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:SC_Wiener_Neustadt_vs._SV_Stripfing_20190817_(134).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Patrick Haas, footballplayer of SV Stripfing. --Steindy 00:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, level of detail is too low – strong compression artifacts. --Augustgeyler 23:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagrre! Please discuss. --Steindy 18:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • On this nomination the effect is even worse than on the other image here in discussion. The skin on the persons face and his hair are strongly effected. Might be correctable? --Augustgeyler 07:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It looks like a bite was taken out of the left (viewer's right) side of his forehead. -- Ikan Kekek 08:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

File:BUS_DANS_LES_RUINES55.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination BUS DANS LES RUINES55EN ALGERIE (by BRAHIM DJELLOUL) --Adoscam 22:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very nice image. The composition is good, would have even been better if the horizontal line was not cropped. But sharpness and level of detail are too low for QI. Sorry! --Augustgeyler 09:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. The sharpness is quite good and is always enough for QI. --Steindy 18:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Small file, sharpness is OK, but we need some kind of information about where this photo was taken. Algeria is a huge country. -- Ikan Kekek 08:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Not sure yet. It's an image from 2014, so it might be okay. Btw. am I the only one seeing artefacts around the letters on the side of the bus?--Peulle 09:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Clear  Oppose. Nice shot, but heavy compression artefacts and very low resolution. Even in 2014, you could expect six Mpixels for landscape photos. --Smial 18:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 20:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Colombo_Lisboa_November_2021-19.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Colombo comercial mall, Lisbon. -- Alvesgaspar 13:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Perspective correction is needed (vertical perspective distortion). --F. Riedelio 17:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC).
  • Please check my general comments on the subject in the going-on discussion at the talk page -- Alvesgaspar 16:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, showing the subject as perceived by the observer's eyes (and captured by the camera) is a deliberate choice here. -- Alvesgaspar 19:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC
  •  Oppose Per F. Riedelio. --Palauenc05 22:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Acceptable now. --Palauenc05 07:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support A bottom-up view of high-rise buildings is normal. Low angle is normal, see Category:Low-angle shots of buildings. It is much worse if, after aligning the verticals, the proportions of the building are ugly distorted. --Andrey Korzun 07:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Leaning up to the right on the left side. -- Ikan Kekek 08:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done You are quite right, Ikan Kekek, the central vertical line of the building should be centered. The mismatch was caused by a crop on the right side. It is fixed now. -- Alvesgaspar 14:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek 20:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK from the point of view. --XRay 15:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good lighting, sharp enough, 100% perspective correction would lead to surreal proportion. --Smial 18:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 20:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Furnas_do_Enxofre,_Angra_do_Heroísmo,_isla_de_Terceira,_Azores,_Portugal,_2020-07-25,_DD_30.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Furnas do Enxofre, Angra do Heroísmo, Terceira Island, Azores, Portugal --Poco a poco 11:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Partly strong CA, see annotations --Hillopo2018 09:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • A really bold oppose. I couldn't see any CA in that area, to me this judgement falls in the "Pixel peeping" category for a file of this size. I uploaded in any case a new version but with the believe that it wasn't needed, though. --Poco a poco 18:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 05:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Sorry, I see no CA, perhaps I'm blind. --Steindy 14:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 16:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Playa_Vasco_de_Gama,_Sines,_Portugal,_2021-09-12,_DD_54.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Vasco de Gama Beach, Sines, Portugal --Poco a poco 18:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Poor framing and composition, especially in the foreground. -- Alvesgaspar 22:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me. I don't understand the criticism but would be happy to read some elaboration. -- Ikan Kekek 14:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I might oppose over an FPC over the railing, but this is nowhere near a compositional defect that should sink a QIC. --King of Hearts 15:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment With a few extra edits, the photo can become much more attractive.--Famberhorst 16:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've cropped a chunk of the bottom. I did it with the firm believe that this cannot be a criteria for QI, as it's just a matter of taste, and it wasn't definitely a randomed crop. --Poco a poco 17:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The pollution underneath is now also gone.--Famberhorst 18:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --Sandro Halank 13:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose It did improve a lot. But I think it is still lacking sharpness (especially to the edges). --Augustgeyler 07:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Ponte_Sant'Angelo_in_Rome_(8).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ponte Sant'Angelo in Rome (by Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 20:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, the global volume of the angel does not look real. + the chromatic and luminance noises in the sky should have been reduced.--Jebulon 17:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I disagree, discuss please. --Tournasol7 14:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. -- Johann Jaritz 05:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 15:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good Quality. --F. Riedelio 10:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The texture of that monument lacks detail, perhaps due to compression. --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question This photo has quite different WB from File:Ponte_Sant'Angelo_in_Rome_(9).jpg. Which one is the correct one? --C messier 18:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Compensation support. Good enough for QI. --Steindy 19:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    •  Question @Steindy: , Could you please tell me, what a "compensation support" is? --Augustgeyler 07:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Hillopo2018 09:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 13:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)