Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 26 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Potamochère roux (Potamochoerus porcus).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Red river hog (Potamochoerus porcus) at zooParc in Beauval (Saint-Aignan, Loir-et-Cher, France). --Gzen92 08:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Unfortunate foreground (distracting stones). --Till.niermann 09:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
     Support Indeed the stones don't add anything to the composition but the main object is very sharp and that's why IMO it is a QI --Michielverbeek 09:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Also find the stones distracting to the point that tighter cropping (note added) might be preferred here. --GRDN711 13:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support.The lighting is actually too hard for me, because it creates very sharp-edged shadows. On the other hand, the image looks very sharp. But while a too tight crop is a frequent and valid reason to refuse a photo QI status because parts of the object are cut off, I find the argument "too much around" absolutely counterproductive. This may be an important argument with FP, but with QI it's very secondary. A subsequent user can cut off at any time, what disturbs him, but never invent ("cut on") anything new. After all, a narrower trim doesn't increase the resolution either, and is only rarely a real gain considering the criteria for QI, because something is actually lost. --Smial 09:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Cercle_municipal_in_Luxembourg_City_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cercle municipal in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg. --Tournasol7 05:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good sharp photo, but please improve the perspective a little bit (left part is hanging to the right and the right aprt is hanging to the left) --Michielverbeek 06:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    No reaction within a week --Michielverbeek 06:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry for the late reaction. But now I corrected it. --Tournasol7 12:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice --Moroder 07:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 08:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I know that I hold a minority opinion here, but I found the first version much more natural and pleasant than the version with perspective correction. In my opinion this is overcorrected. A photo is not a technical drawing. I am not against perspective corrections in principle, they are often useful and necessary, but I would like to advocate a little that we free ourselves from the dogma "everything must be vertical", if photos seem too grotesquely distorted by it. --Smial 09:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

File:20180728_Carnaval_Sztukmistrzów_Lublin_1501_8238_DxO.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Street performers at Carnaval Sztukmistrzów 2018 festival in Lublin --Jakubhal 05:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Question Is it allowed to photograph children in public places in Poland? --Steindy 08:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Again, there is no such law in Poland. I was not aware that such law could possibly exist in Austria. It is good to know, but for now totally not relevant until I go to your country to take pictures there. In your previous comment, you write you do not believe my reply, hence I have wrong intentions and I'm trying to lie? As described for example here in Poland we are allowed to take pictures with people being just a detail of the whole, such as a gathering, a landscape or a public event, as in this case. There is no distinction based on the age of a person in a background. How that could possibly work in Austria? What is the age limit? Do you guess the age of a person? --Jakubhal 11:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good one, esp. good choice of exposure time, so the artist is depicted sharp while that juggling thingy still shows movement.  Comment If there is indeed a problem with Polish personal rights, then that would have nothing to do with the QI process, but it would be a case for a request for deletion. As far as I know, however, Poland has very similar regulations to Germany and Germany has very similar regulations to Austria in terms of personal rights, freedom of panorama and so on - and that would allow such images taken at public events and their publication without any problems so far. --Smial 12:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

File:2019_Kościół_MB_Królowej_Polski_w_Brodziszowie_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Virgin Mary Queen of Poland church in Brodziszów 3 --Jacek Halicki 07:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, for me, having a QI is more than just taking a sharp picture. Here is not enough church to see, but only environment. --Steindy 08:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Good enough for QI. --Jakubhal 14:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jakubhal. --Smial 08:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 07:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Waihi_Beach_Reserve_31.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Waihi Beach Reserve near Hawera in Taranaki Region, North Island of New Zealand. --Tournasol7 05:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose In the left half of the image, you can see "sharpening artefacts", and even defective pixels. Having a nice and sharp picture is difficult because of the water, and the mist, I reckon. But, nonetheless, a good scene for a photograph! --Johannes Maximilian 07:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. I don´t see any artefacts. Very good quality for me. --Milseburg 12:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support If pixel peeping: very small remains of CA, some microscopic chroma noise, and tiny sharpening artifacts. Absolutely nothing to worry about. --Smial 12:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial --Moroder 07:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)