Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 16 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Small (Semicircular) Palace 5099.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Small (Semicircular) Palace, Orekhovo-Borisovo Northern, southern suburbs, Moscow --AlixSaz 12:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Can you fix perspective? --Cvmontuy 12:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment Correction possible. What is the drawback there? Explain? --AlixSaz 19:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC),
      •  Comment Proper perspective is one requirement for QI but exceptions are accepted, lets discuss
  •  Oppose Dramatically oversharpened, CA. Perspective correction needed. --Nino Verde 05:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose--Peulle 06:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, + unfortunate crop of the lantern.--Jebulon 01:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Мыс_и_маяк_Таран._Калининградская_область._Николай_Ягунов.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Taran Lighthouse (former Brüsterort) in Kalinigrad Oblast. By User:NyagunovNiklitov 19:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Sharpness is ok, but colors too enhanced IMO. Can you fix it? Tournasol7 21:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good evening, Tournasol7! It's a matter of taste. At your discretion! — Niklitov 21:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not agree, because the colors aren't natural. However let others say. Please discuss, Tournasol7 22:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened, oversaturated, bright parts burned out. --Nino Verde 05:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Note that it's probably a scanned film positive, not a digital photo, so high saturation is in line with "film positive" style. --Shansov.net 16:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment Yep, checked info. It is scanned film positive photo. But anyway, i'm not sure that it conforms to QI standards --Nino Verde 16:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Nino Verde --Cvmontuy 21:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question - Why is it a problem to upload a scan of a vivid color photo? -- Ikan Kekek 00:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 Comment It shouldn't be, really, but given the lack of metadata, how would we know? Also: if someone takes a really god photo/scan of a bad photo, does that make the end result a good image? This is very meta, but ...--Peulle 09:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Isn't the lack of metadata inherent to the fact that this is a scan of a printed photo? I don't see why that should be a reason to reject it. Please explain. I'm inclined to support. -- Ikan Kekek 06:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --PumpkinSky 23:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

File:South-block NDLS 05092014.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination South Block in New Delhi--Nikhil B 08:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 08:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Rather small and the composition isn´t convincing me. Too much sky. --Milseburg 13:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too agressive noise reduction, unnatural colors. --Nino Verde 05:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not high enough quality considering the small size, IMO.--Peulle 10:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --PumpkinSky 23:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Pic_St_Mury_Vallée_Grésivaudan.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Grésivaudan Valley seen from the Pic Saint-Mury --MirandaAdramin 13:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Aeou 17:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Impressive size and imaging quality. But the stitch error on the left (see note) should be corrected. The orientation of the horizon does not seem to be right. It is bulging towards the center. --Milseburg 13:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I uploaded a new version, larger. I fixed the horizon problem and fought some hours with the stitching control points without completely winning. Milseburg, could you please have a look ? Thanks. --MirandaAdramin 14:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The big stitching error is gone, a little one remains at the same place, visible as an step. In my eyes a QI-panorama needs a perfect stitching, especially on the horizon and even when it´s large. Enough reviewers seem to have a lower claim. The alignment is ok for QI. Maybe the lower limit of the clouds is really lower to the right side.--Milseburg (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose Too noisy, can be corrected --Nino Verde 06:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Nino Verde, maybe the larger size will convince you. I learnt photography with films and reduce the noise always makes me think of a bulldozer ;-) --MirandaAdramin 14:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
      • MirandaAdramin, i've checked at full size. The work itself is really nice and noise is visible on sky only. Thus my oppose is weak. --Nino Verde 16:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Awesome landscape --Billy69150 12:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Palauenc05 22:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful! --Tournasol7 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - This is nowhere near a borderline case to me: a huge panorama with a bit of grain/noise in the background. -- Ikan Kekek 00:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon 01:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 00:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Chapelle_de_la_Vieille_Charité_Marseille_2017.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Vieille Charité (Chapelle et hospice). By User:Alexrk2 --Marianne Casamance 15:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 16:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm very sorry to interfere, but in full resolution I see some CAs, much of noise but only little of sharpness. --PtrQs 21:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per PtrQs, in spite of the fact that a good counterargument is that it's a large file. -- Ikan Kekek 06:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't understand why ISO 1600 but it is a very interesting composition and sharpness is O.K. for me. -- Spurzem 07:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 22:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per PtrQs Poco a poco 11:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left part of image is completely blurred (and noisy). --Shansov.net 18:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Shansov PumpkinSky 23:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose with opposers.--Jebulon 01:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --PumpkinSky 23:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)