Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 20 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Bavaria_Statue_and_Ruhmeshalle_Munich,_April_2019_-02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Ruhmeshalle and the Bavaria Statue in Munich. --Martin Falbisoner 21:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 21:29, 15 April 2019
     Oppose In places crass overexposed and foreground left too dark. I don't think that it is a QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 20:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)(UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 21:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    *Ordinarily, I'd just post a comment, but since this has come to a vote:  Oppose for now per Spurzem, but I think it's fixable and would like to support. I don't really care about the foreground, though, only about overexposed portions of the Ruhmeshalle. -- Ikan Kekek 08:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
     Info Thanks everyone! The thing is that the illumination is not really well calibrated, in fact it's way too bright. There's not much a photographer can do once the sky is getting really dark, as I've learned to my dismay... I've tried to further reduce highlights a bit but I'm afraid my raw doesn't offer more reserves. That being said, I think the image is better now --Martin Falbisoner 09:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Seven Pandas 21:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem --Idontfindaoriginalname 22:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Eatcha 21:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 21:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Jubilee_and_Munin,_Ravens,_Tower_of_London_2016-04-30.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jubilee and Munin, Ravens of the Tower of London By User:Colin--Eatcha 17:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Question@Eatcha I see you refurbishing the POTY-Winners. How many years are you willing to go back with nominating excellence for quality standard? --PtrQs 22:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think we should be blindsided by the fact that this was a featured picture (different criteria to QI anyway). There's so much wrong with it, including pixel smear, oversharpening causing white fringe artifacts, less than 2mb, main subject/s lacking focus, even the (what first appears sharp) beak on the left. The featured picture discussion (linked on the FP banner), has adequate comments admitting that this is below par quality. --Acabashi 15:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Acabashi, MB are irrelevant. The minimum size is 2 Megapixels. -- Ikan Kekek 15:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. Acabashi 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think this is a typical case where the FP criterion of wow factor superceding technical quality comes in. As for passing the criteria based purely on quality, I don't think it does.--Peulle 11:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner 21:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Peulle. --Yann 10:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle Poco a poco 17:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle --PtrQs 00:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment But I still cannot see the purpose of reviewing old POTY-winners. Wether they were praised for their technical quality or they had - as Peulle stated - so much wow, that technical errors could not stop people choosing them (or a sufficient mix of both). I think the real purpose of QI is to motivate us photographers to load new images of a contemporary quality into Commons, to provide us guidelines to judge them as 'Quality' and to give all those, who write articles, a database of high quality images to illustrate their text. So I see no good reason to re-review old images, wich have already earned their commendation, by (today's) QI-standards. --PtrQs 00:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 21:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)