Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 20 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Campanule_Rochebaron.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Campanule, Haute-Loire. --MirandaAdramin 20:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Manfred Kuzel 11:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I don't agree - 2 petals are out of focus. Tournasol7 21:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Tournasol7.--Peulle 13:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Puycelsi Church Bell Tower.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Puycelsi. XVIIth century porch-tower of the church --LeZibou 21:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support GQ Ezarate 22:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but this image need a perspective correction... Tournasol7 22:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC) @Tournasol7: ✓ Done, I guess, I tried to find the best compromise between perspective correction and proportions (not to have the top of the belltower looking bigger than the bottom). --LeZibou 18:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Without more space on top this won't be fixable, I fear. --Basotxerri 16:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC) @Basotxerri: absolutely, unfortunately I took "too much ground" on the picture, and not enough sky... ; it's hard to get the bell tower in one single shot, as space lacks. --LeZibou 18:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Vallas_del_campo_de_concentración_de_Dachau,_Alemania,_2016-03-05,_DD_24.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Fence of the concentration camp of Dachau, Germany --Poco a poco 08:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment Dramatic but seems that most of it is out of focus --Moroder 08:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Enough of it is sharp to satisfy me. There's no need for the entirety of a fence that's receding into the distance to be sharp, in my opinion. The barbed wire closest to the viewer that's unsharp is unfortunate, but I find the overall effect fine. Moroder, please vote to oppose if you'd like to move this to CR, or otherwise, we can promote it. -- Ikan Kekek 08:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Blurred part prevails --Moroder 09:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
    •  Neutral to remain consistent but I like the image very much --Moroder 14:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment No it doesn't. I said you could either pass this photo or move it to CR. It's perhaps a little rude that you tried to decline it. Hoping I wouldn't notice? -- Ikan Kekek 13:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please @Ikan Kekek: , don't treat me like that... I tried to follow your suggestion and, working with the bottons, first you have to decline a nomination before you put it on CR --Moroder 09:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support To my eyes this is a very good one. The photo tells an interesting story. Well implemented and of course good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 13:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The focus is on the subject and the subject is sufficiently well photographed. --Christian Ferrer 18:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - No, Moroder, the way to move anything to CR is to change the status to "Discuss" NOT "Decline". You didn't know that? Now you do. -- Ikan Kekek 22:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Double contours bottom left. Camera shake? Malfunctioning image stabilizer? Multiple Exposure/Bracketing? --Smial 09:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
    No, no bracketing, just one frame. Stabilizer is fine, otherwise the right side of the image would be sharp. How would you manage to have half a picture sharp and shake on the other side, that would just be possible through rotating the camera (then the center could be sharp and the rest unsharp), but it isn't the case here. Poco a poco 19:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I don't know how this is possible, but the doubled contours exist. I would like to learn about this effect. Two more reasons could be possible: Partly oversharpening, or ugly bokeh. There are lenses that produce different bokeh at near distance and at far distance. Once a defective stabilizer in my k-x produced similar effects, and it was not distributed equally on the image. --Smial 08:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, for me too large blurred areas, strong blur, even though most of the fence is OK. --A.Savin 12:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can not see the quality. Only the first two or three fence posts are sharp, most of this Image is very blurry. Also the close portrait is disturbing. If I use the usual rules for QI, I have to decline.--Zoppo59 14:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand these criticisms, the subject is the fence and it is mostly sharp, why expect other areas to be sharp? Poco a poco 21:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
     Question Sorry, but are the barbed wire and gravel on the ground not part of the fence? It lookes like double exposure. --Zoppo59 14:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry Diego but for Savin --Livioandronico2013 18:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Peulle 07:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann 09:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others. --Manfred Kuzel 04:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   (inconclusive after thorough voting process) --Peulle 19:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)