Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 26 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Aerial_image_of_the_Mengen-Hohentengen_airfield.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial image of the Mengen-Hohentengen airfield, Germany --Carsten Steger 18:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 19:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sorry to oppose. I know Carsten Steger's standpoint about the sufficient level of detail images of the series are achieving. But I think this image doesn't: White roofs are blown out. Greenery has very view structure. Instead I see strong compression- / noise reduction effects. --Augustgeyler 23:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Augustgeyler, same problem as in the similar nomination below -- Alvesgaspar 22:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Floridsdorfer_AC_2016–17_–_Marco_Sahanek_(04).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Marco Sahanek, footballplayer of Floridsdorfer AC. --Steindy 00:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 09:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry. I think the players face and especially his eyes are not sharp enough due to motion. --Augustgeyler 11:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough to me, motion blur is slight and quite common in sport photos. -- Alvesgaspar 22:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 00:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Rue_Basse_(Monaco)_en_novembre_2021.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rue Basse (Monaco) en novembre 2021. --Benoît Prieur 12:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Perspective correction is needed (vertical perspective distortion). IMO unfavorable image composition: too much foreground (should be cropped)) --F. Riedelio 17:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
     Not done within one week. --F. Riedelio 08:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Verticals are basically OK, just very slight discrepancies. Foreground is a matter of taste. --Palauenc05 21:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated, and clipping colour channels in the sky. --Smial 10:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With Smial. --Augustgeyler 10:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support A nice picture, well exposed and composed — Alvesgaspar 19:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 20:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Aerial_image_of_the_Albstadt-Degerfeld_airfield.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial image of the Albstadt-Degerfeld airfield, Germany --Carsten Steger 18:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry! Not sharp enough. --Steindy 19:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you very much for the review! Could you please point out which parts of the image you perceive as blurred? --Carsten Steger 10:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The photo gives an overview of the airfield: runway, hangars, gliders and a light aircraft. The runway is in the center of the picture. The whole scene is in focus. --V.Boldychev 12:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Yes the composition is good. Perhaps the focus was set concretely, but the resulting level of detail is too low. --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please examine the area in front of the hangar where there are three gliders and a yellow light aircraft and measure the level of detail. In a 43 x 18 px rectangle (coordinates 3042, 848px and 3085, 866px), the fuselage, wings, tail and horizontal stabiliser of the glider are recognizable. Another glider is slightly higher, notice the thin right wing and the shadow below it, the vertical size of the wing is only 3 px (coordinates 3068, 834px and 3068, 837px), the vertical size of the shadow is 1px. Many QIs would envy this sharpness. --V.Boldychev (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 20:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Augustgeyler. The file size of 6 MB is small for a 15 MP image. I wonder if the JPG quality while saving is less than 100%? This could explain the loss of detail. --Tagooty 02:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Radovljica_Linhartov_Trg_Schloss_Thurn_SW-Ansicht_18082017_0421.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castle Thurn on Linhart square #1, Radovljica, Upper Carniola, Slovenia -- Johann Jaritz 03:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural perspective correction -- Alvesgaspar 05:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Alvesgaspar: Thanks for your review. I modified the perspective to a moderate version. —- Johann Jaritz 05:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The discussion of perspective correction ... IMO the prior image was better. --XRay 06:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I reverted the image to the original version. -- Johann Jaritz 07:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you. :-) The corner of the building is dominant, but overall, in my opinion, the picture is balanced. And the corner is also correct in perspective. --XRay 06:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar --Michielverbeek 08:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per XRay. --Sebring12Hrs 12:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much. If we really want to be consistent, we must of course also demand a complete correction of the horizontal perspective when photographing a building facade. After all, no architect draws a trapezoidal facade. Sorry to Johan, I actually really like your pictures in general, but here I couldn't resist. --Smial 17:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi Smial, of course, architects draw trapezoids when they represent a façade that is not seen from the front, in accordance with the rules of perspective that they have adopted. --Velvet 09:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 Comment Can you show me a corresponding construction drawing? I am not talking about advertising brochures. In the latter, you can occasionally find skewed verticals. -- Smial 11:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial --Sandro Halank 18:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Kallerna 16:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 20:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination Archeological museum of Kos, Greece --Ввласенко 07:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, bad copyright. --F. Riedelio 11:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, no FOP in Greece. Architech Rodolfo Petracco died in 1961. --C messier 18:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment FOP-templates added. --F. Riedelio 08:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "If a copyrighted architectural or artistic work is contained in this image and it is a substantial reproduction, this photo cannot be licensed under a free license, and will be deleted." (from the added template) --C messier 08:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question So is it possible to promote this image as QI? --Augustgeyler 10:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • ✓ Answered It is possible but not allowed (neither the upload nor the QI nomination of copyrighted objects). --F. Riedelio 16:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose So we may not promote this as QI. Thank you F. Riedelio! --Augustgeyler 16:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Tiburón_azul_(Prionace_glauca),_canal_Fayal-Pico,_islas_Azores,_Portugal,_2020-07-27,_DD_11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Blue shark (Prionace glauca), Faial-Pico Channel, Azores Islands, Portugal. --Poco a poco 10:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Usharp & noisy. --Kallerna 09:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment This judgement is either proof that your reviews are biased or that you shouldn't judge things you cannot judge --Poco a poco 23:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for an underwater shot. --Tagooty 03:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Taking into account the photographic conditions, the picture is okay. --XRay 06:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support This image is good in my eyes --PantheraLeo1359531 14:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree that this is good quality for an underwater shot --Kritzolina 11:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support -- Borderline to me in terms of detail and sharpness. -- Alvesgaspar 22:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 22:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Vue_de_la_rue_Basse_(Monaco)_en_novembre_2021.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Vue de la rue Basse (Monaco) en novembre 2021. --Benoît Prieur 06:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry to dely the promotion, but the white triangle to the right needs to be fixed. --C messier 23:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somewhat oversaturated, and overprocessed sky. --Smial 11:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose But for different reasons: noise is really too much, affecting the detail. Alvesgaspar 22:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --C messier 12:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)