Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 23 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Female_polar_bear_(Ursus_maritimus)_with_cub,_Svalbard.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination polar bear (Ursus maritimus) with cub, Svalbard --AWeith 07:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Halavar 09:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure all that purple is the true snow color tint snow takes on in arctic light, looks more like residual CA. Some areas are the typical turquoise you get in arctic snow/ice and the red is not CA but dinner leftovers. Let's hear some other oppinions. --W.carter 09:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO white snow you can only see in overexposed photos. IMO such a thing as "true snow color" does not exist--Moroder 11:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Wording corrected. I'm comparing with this pic taken with my old bad camera where I know the purple is 100% CA and not the color I saw in the snow that day. W.carter 11:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment May I try to explain? It appears that the animals live on that ice floe already for some time. They left some debris, food leftovers and other things in the area where they usually reside (flat part in front of the image). Thats why the snow there may have taken on the color of polar bear urin and other stuff. In the back, where the bears don't reach, the snow has the typical arctic colors both in sun and shade. I have removed all CA; also color noise can't exist since the image has been taken at ISO 250. --AWeith 07:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course you can join the discussion any time and clarify things, that's what this page is for. It was only the upper left part of the image that had me wondering since purple tint is one of the most common technical flaws when photographing snow. But if you say that it's ok, I'll take your word for it. --W.carter 08:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --W.carter 08:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support. Perhaps a bit more contrast were good but nevertheless it is a very good image. -- Spurzem 09:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support With more exposure and curves it could be FP too --The Photographer 01:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --cart-Talk 08:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Akademisches-kunstmuseum-07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Athena Lemnia (Akademisches Kunstmuseum Bonn) --AKirch-Bonn 07:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • green CAs overall, please check. --Hubertl 08:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded--AKirch-Bonn 15:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the CAs are still there. Pretty severe. --Hubertl 07:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Wo sollen die sein? Es ist schwierig in eurem erlauchten Kreis aufgenommen zu werden ;-) Aber nichts für ungut es hat mir auch gezeigt worauf ich mehr achten muss. Bis dann --AKirch-Bonn 13:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded I hope it is better now. --AKirch-Bonn 15:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment, sorry it is not - see your talk page! But let´s have some more opinions. --Hubertl 06:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - For what it's worth, looking only at the latest version, it seems pretty unsharp to me and kind of weird-looking. The color of the sculpture seems very strange to me - a chromatic aberration, in part, unless it's really a sort of blotchy blue tint. At least part of the word "AKADEMISCHES" is so blurry, it almost seems to be double. I could go on, but I don't think this is close to QI quality. Sorry, I regret being harsh, but that's what I see. -- Ikan Kekek 08:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If this were a photo of the museum, I'd expect a different composition with more of the building showing, and a more accurate title and categorization. If this is meant to be a photo of the statue in front of the the museum (the image title suggests otherwise), I think the statue should be in better focus. So either way it's not quite QI to me.--Peulle 20:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 14:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Maulavern_Kellergasse,_Zellerndorf-6339.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Winemaker alley with press houses and wine cellars, Maulavern In Zellerndorf, Lower Austria (Weinviertel). By User:Kellergassen Niederösterreich 2016 --Hubertl 18:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. Would be better if brightened though. --Johann Jaritz 05:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, the gables on the left houses are very noisy, even some chromatic noise. This should be fixed. --W.carter 14:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, W.carter, noise fixed. Thanks for reviewing. --Hubertl 18:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, but can only see the second gable fixed, the one with the green door and vines is still noisy. Maybe the system is slow to upload the new version, it has happened before. W.carter 19:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment again, new version. --Hubertl 06:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Splendid! Thanks. :) Good quality. W.carter 08:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted Peulle 10:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

File:RO_BZ_Buzau_Crang_restaurant.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The restaurant in Crâng park, Buzău, Romania --Andrei Stroe 09:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Weak  Support Good quality. Shadows could be brighter. Car in the front is a little bit disturbing. --XRay 10:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree shadow too dark in front of car.. --Bijay chaurasia 05:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows too dark and the black car doesn't make things better. A crop (see note) could perhaps improve the picture, even if it doesn't show the whole building. cart-Talk 08:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now, per others. W.carter, I support your crop suggestion, providing that it starts above all the cars, which I think is your intention. -- Ikan Kekek 08:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somewhat too high contrast and because of that too dark shadows. Lots of CA (reason for decline). Please don't crop, it would result in completely unbalanced composition. --Smial 11:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined Peulle 10:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Husqvarna_Automower_308_with_track_marks_in_lawn.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Husqvarna Automower 308 with track marks in lawn. --W.carter 23:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, bad composition: subject unaccountably small. --Lmbuga 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment The subject was not only the automower but the tracks it left in the lawn. But since I obviously failed to communicate that with the picture, I can understand why you decided to decline it. W.carter 07:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry, in this case, I disagree. This is not a product image of the mower, but a photo of the device in its habitat. IMO, this is OK for a QI. However others may think differently, let's see. --Basotxerri 09:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment The mower moves in a random "bump and turn" pattern over the lawn and I thought this photo would illustrate this since the track marks were so visible, not sure I succeeded though. W.carter 11:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Basotxerri. I think the file and description are clear enough for the viewer to understand what s/he is seeing, and the photo is of good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support now with the added data. Jkadavoor 09:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I probably should have done that from the start... W.carter 09:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The image quality is good, and the composition acceptable. The image is of sufficient size so as to allow zooming in on the mower, if that's what you want to see.--Peulle 09:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support +1 --Ralf Roletschek 19:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted Peulle 09:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)