Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 29 2018

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Valacia_Ciastel_de_Stevia_Col_dala_Pieres_Val_Gherdëina.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Ciastel de Stevia and Valacia Puez-Geisler Nature Park, Dolomites. A UNESCO World Heritage Site. --Moroder 05:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. Something is wrong with one of the summits. See note. BTW, the lower left corner is rather unsharp. --Milseburg 14:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question Where's the note? Without the unsharp area, I'd consider this a strong contender for FP. I'd vote for it to be QI, but please point out where the problem you see is. -- Ikan Kekek 06:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Moroder improved his photo after my review. Usually this should be proclaimed here so that comments remain understandable. The stitching problem and the note are gone, the unsharp corner remains. It´s always problematic to strive for a higher resolution by using a higher focal length and stitching because there is the risk that the foreground becomes unsharp. --Milseburg 07:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - I regret the unsharp area, but the larger sharp area is beautiful. Not an FP, but IMO an image of quality. -- Ikan Kekek 04:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support No problem with DOF, after applied corrections very good. --Smial 13:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

File:The_Lamp_in_castle_Vrchotovy_Janovice.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Lamp in castle Vrchotovy Janovice. --Adámoz 16:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 01:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Pixelised, it's very nice picture but i think it's not sufficient quality --Armenak Margarian 11:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much chroma noise for me.--Peulle 06:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support -- Spurzem 20:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 04:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 12:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Torminbrücke_--_2018_--_3595.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tormin Bridge (at sunrise), Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Noise should be removed and maybe a bit of sharpness added. --Ermell 06:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Thank you for your review. Noise reduction is now improved. --XRay 16:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still not perfect. Too bad about the beautiful motive. Perhaps a discussion would be useful here. --Ermell 12:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done I tried to fix some issues, hopefully good enough. And please pay attention, the bridge was colored in blue some year ago. --XRay 15:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support not perfect, but good enough for QI.
  • Above support vote stricken as unsigned.--Peulle (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good view and good quality for me -- Spurzem 20:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Daylight and strong shadowed parts in one photo. For me quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 12:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support very beautiful perspective and magnificent symmetry, bravo --Khanaon 12:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - A bit noisy on the underside at full size, but sort of so what? OK, maybe not quite an FP (I think with less noise, it could be) but surely a very good QI. -- Ikan Kekek 04:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case 23:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Sempervivum_-_plant2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Sempervivum in the Czech Sternberk in the Czech Republic. --Adámoz 17:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment Categories need improving.--Peulle 19:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Adámoz 08:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support OK.--Peulle 16:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky is blown, no specie identification, no English description. Sorry --Podzemnik 09:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
    ✓ Done OK.--Adámoz 15:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support It is a QI IMO. --PJDespa (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose top leaves and sky are blown, it should work as a crop. --Trougnouf 11:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support very vivid photo. I would like the name of the species: tectorum, montanum (?) --Khanaon 11:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Overprocessed. I don't approve of hiding blown sky by making everything so gray. Could you please make a more realistic-looking edit? Then I might support. -- Ikan Kekek 04:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 14:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)