Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 17 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Iglesia_de_Santiago,_Bergen,_Noruega,_2019-09-08,_DD_110.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Jakob church, Bergen, Norway --Poco a poco 08:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, the photo is awful! The completely distorted photo is the price for it, if you absolutely want to represent all edges vertically. I do not like such photos because they do not correspond to reality and not to natural vision. For comparison see this photo. --Steindy 13:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • That foto is also mine and took so to say at the same time, 2 views from 2 different POVs. Go ahead and decline if you believe so. --Poco a poco 20:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Let's hear other opinions. --Steindy 14:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I wouldn't say "awful", as the sharpness is quite good, but I agree that the perspective warp is not QI level in this case, e.g. the left is leaning in. It's difficult getting good shots of tall buildings from a short distance, but the fact is that the church just doesn't look like this.--Peulle 10:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much. Per Peulle. --Smial 10:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per the others, too much perspective correction. --Domob 19:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, perspective correction applies not, how it should --PantheraLeo1359531 14:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 23:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

File:2011-05-30 019 DNFS Young Highland cow, Denmark.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Young Highland bull of red dun color south of Frederikshavn, Denmark. --GRDN711 19:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry! I am missing the face. --Steindy 21:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There were 3 other QI images with this one that showed the full face. In this one, the young bull is grooming himself in a way that is typical of the breed. --GRDN711 18:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Voted on, but not set to "decline" - sending to CR. --Peulle 11:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good photo. Why does every photo of an animal need to have a face in it? -- Ikan Kekek 10:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp, good lighting and composition. Hufe sind drauf. -Smial 10:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support No face, of course, but it is a natural photo of this animal. -- Spurzem 22:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Face is not a must IMHO Poco a poco 11:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 23:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_Santiago,_Werfen,_Austria,_2019-05-18,_DD_84-86_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ceiling of St James church, Werfen, Austria --Poco a poco 11:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion

* Oppose Corners are unsharp and lighting is too irregular. Sorry. --Imehling 13:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Harsh review, given the resolution still ok to me --Poco a poco 17:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support given the resolution. --Smial 05:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support per Smial. --Aristeas 10:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, at least for now. The overexposed areas really bug me at full-page size. No need to pixel peep for that. -- Ikan Kekek 16:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    Ikan Kekek: Highlights reduced Poco a poco 21:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The brightest areas still feel overexposed to me. -- Ikan Kekek 09:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Second thought: It's probably good enough. I'll just cross out my opposing vote. -- Ikan Kekek 00:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support The new version is better.--Imehling 09:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 23:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

File:The_Triumphal_Procession_Carrying_the_Spoils_from_the_Temple_of_Jerusalem,_attributed_to_Jean-Guillaume_Moitte,_c._1797,_terracotta_-_Fogg_Art_Museum,_Harvard_University_-_DSC01402.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The Triumphal Procession Carrying the Spoils from the Temple of Jerusalem, attributed to Jean-Guillaume Moitte, c. 1797, Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S. By User:Daderot --Another Believer 04:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose - Not sharp enough on the left side. -- Ikan Kekek 06:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support It's a bit distorted due to the short lens but sharp enough. Please discuss -- Spurzem 13:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support, overall good enough. --Kritzolina (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support, overall OK. --Aristeas 10:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Steindy 23:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Petermann_Ranges_(AU),_Uluru-Kata_Tjuta_National_Park,_Uluru_--_2019_--_3595.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Uluru (Ayers Rock) seen from Yulara in Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park, Petermann Ranges, Northern Territory, Australia --XRay 06:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Overall not sharp. --Steindy 00:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thank you. It's sharper now. Please respect that Uluru is at a distance of about 10 kilometers. There is a lot of dust in the air. --XRay 08:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I expect more sharpness in the foreground with landscape shots like this one. --Milseburg 10:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me. In a photo taken with 105mm on a ff camera with focus on infinity, I do not expect the foreground to be sharp, and the softness of the Uluru itself is explained by dust and haze. --Aristeas 10:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't expect the foreground to be sharp, but the Uluru, as the main subject of the picture, should be Poco a poco 11:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 23:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Ebrach_Turmfalken_Nest-RM-20190425-01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kestrel at the nest on the facade of Ebrach Monastery --Ermell 08:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 09:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Very interesting picture. However too soft, blurry and noisy for QI, sorry --George Chernilevsky 09:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment So it's good to discuss. IMO the photo is OK for this kind of image. --XRay 09:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per George. -- Ikan Kekek 06:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Info Please note that 400mm MfT focal length corresponds to 800mm FF. I don't think it would have been possibly better under these lighting conditions.--Ermell 08:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per XRay. A photo at 800mm focal length (equivalent) of moving animals is really difficult, and the main motif was captured well. --Aristeas 11:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support unter den gegebenen Bedingungen exzellent umgesetzt, +1 zu Aristeas--Ralf Roletschek 14:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Aristeas, and has far more than 6 MPixels. Similar shots strong downscaled have been promoted. --Smial 16:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 17:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Kritzolina 12:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per XRay. Image is compelling. --GRDN711 20:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that the moment was captured great and the photo is impressive. Unfortunately, the sharpness not quite fit, which is probably due to the zoom lens. For me because of the moment weak  Support. --Steindy 15:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - I've had second thoughts. I think you and the other supporters are right. -- Ikan Kekek 10:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 9 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Steindy 23:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)