Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 25 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Lac_des_Toules_-_Centrale_photovoltaïque.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La centrale photovoltaïque sur le lac des Toules. --Espandero 15:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Out of focus and sharpness is not at QI standard. --Halavar 18:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
     Support "Out of focus" is simply not true. The left is very slightly less sharp than the rest of the image, but very much within the realm of acceptability for a 20 MP image. --King of Hearts 07:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
     Support Agree with King --Commonists 18:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. Excellent composition with the road above.--Jebulon 19:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Sachsenross_LUH_winter_Hannover_Dec18_DSC05841.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bronze statue of the "Sachsenross" ("Saxon Horse"), by Albert Wolff in 1865, winter view, Leibniz Universität Hannover --Tagooty 04:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Poor lighting, noisy, soft, over sharpened. Alvesgaspar 13:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --ADARSHluck 06:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Halavar 17:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. --Kallerna 15:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Just okay for QI -- sharpening haloes aren't particularly nice indeed, but otherwise no big deal. We don't always demand sunny weather. --A.Savin 19:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Convento_de_Jesús,_Setúbal,_Portugal,_2021-09-09,_DD_78-80_HDR.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Monastery of Jesus, Setúbal, Portugal --Poco a poco 06:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Aristeas 07:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange colours, unnatural perspective and poor detail (maybe resulting from denoising) -- Alvesgaspar 14:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Detail good enough for such a large file, colours also look ok to me given the artificial illumination --DXR 06:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question I suppose all reviewers have noticed the weird red artefact on the right part of the image. Or is it part of the subject? -- Alvesgaspar 09:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, we have ;–). I have regarded this as a light trail (maybe from a bicycle? a Segway? an E-board? or from some other modern gimmick), and I have ignored it because it does not obscure the main subject and has IMHO no influence on the composition. Personally I would clone it out, but we are just at QIC here, not at FPC, so I didn’t request that. --Aristeas 10:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Aristeas is right, it was a bicycle light trail, I cloned it out. I also reduced the saturation a bit. In addition to that I uploaded a further version with a bit more of sharpness. I concur with DXR's feedback, the file resolution does play a role. Poco a poco 17:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the improvements, Diego. I still don't like the unnatural perspective and that is why I do not support. This is a very significant monument of the early Manuelin architecture which suffers, in my opinion, from the ugly type of local stone they used. Alvesgaspar 20:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support why not? --Commonists 18:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Delleboersterheide,_natuurgebied_van_het_It_Fryske_Gea._23-08-2021._(actm.)_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Delleboersterheide, nature reserve of the It Fryske Gea. Peat lake.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: soft, little detail and noisy -- Alvesgaspar 13:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I would suggest to apply some denoising to the foreground (i.e. at the bottom of the image), but elsewhere it is good, the area which is the centre of attention (the other border and the trees) is sharp. --Aristeas 10:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Palauenc05 12:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Commonists 18:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB off. --Kallerna 15:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

File:South_Markus_Kirsche_Hannover_Germany_Dec18_DSC05814.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Markus Kirche, south facade (steeple cropped), Hannover --Tagooty 16:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose As in the previous nomination, the overcast sky ruins the conditions for photographing. -- Alvesgaspar 20:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Overcast skies and muted colours are part of winter in Hannover. A QI should be natural. Please see new version with removal of some CA and small increase in vibrance. --Tagooty 03:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Please fix name and description. There is no cherry. ;-) --XRay 09:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @XRay: Oops! Description fixed, I'll change the file name after the QIC process is over. --Tagooty 15:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek 22:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The sharpness of the church is pretty, but the sky is outblown. --Steindy (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad light. --Kallerna 16:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar.--Jebulon 19:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --A.Savin 20:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

File:South_Steeple_Markus_Kirsche_Hannover_Germany_Dec18_DSC05799g.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Markus Kirche, south facade, Hannover --Tagooty 16:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose betther than the previous ones but not good enough. Extensive noise and a cropped car near the bottom. -- Alvesgaspar 20:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
     Support Still a QI for me, issues are relatively minor. --King of Hearts 23:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Alvesgaspar: I do not see noise, pl. indicate where you see it. --Tagooty 03:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Info Please check near the bottom left part of the the image, where the noise affects the leaves and car. The lack of detail of some darker parts of the building is also caused by noise, I believe. Alvesgaspar 08:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Please fix name and description. There is no cherry. ;-) --XRay 09:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @XRay: Oops! Description fixed, I'll change the file name after the QIC process is over. --Tagooty 15:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Needs a perspective correction (see for example the windows). When it's done I will give a support. --Steindy 12:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distracting foreground, bad composition. --Kallerna 16:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. And the name of the file is wrong (Kirsche#Kirche) --Jebulon 19:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)