Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 20 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Ramparts_of_the_historic_fortified_city_of_Carcassone_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ramparts of the historic fortified city of Carcassone, Aude, France. --Tournasol7 06:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    I'd crop the left side to get rid of the photographer, he spoilt the image --Poco a poco 08:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
    This is a part of the outer wall. I would like to keep this image in this form, please. --Tournasol7 12:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    Some cloning then? --Poco a poco 10:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC).
  •  Support I don’t see any problem with the photographer. It’s a sign of the times. --Moroder 04:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To be honest, I disagree, this is not what I expect from an architectural image --Poco a poco 08:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good sharpness. People who visit historical sites are unavoidable, and some take photographs there. For an FP this would not be enough, of course. --Smial 15:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 19:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

File:T-6_Texan_Take_to_the_Skies_Airfest_2016.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A T-6 Texan II from Randolph Air Force Base at the Take to the Skies Airfest in 2016 in Durant, Oklahoma.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Balon Greyjoy 13:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 17:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise, dust spots. --A.Savin 01:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin. Also CA and only mediocre sharpness. --Smial 16:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Cotinus_Texana_Mexp2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cotinus Texana in Mexico City --Cvmontuy 13:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Not enough DoF, white is too much --Charlesjsharp 14:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only a small part of the bug is sharp. --Spurzem 07:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles, the bottom part of the thumbnail at maximum brightness on my screen looks like it's transparent due to the white background. --Pandakekok9 01:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 19:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Sumpfohreule_(asio_flammeus)_-_Spiekeroog,_Nationalpark_niedersächsisches_Wattenmeer.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination asio flammeus in flight --Ssprmannheim 09:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality given the distance. --Peulle 09:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Lacks sharpness. Sorry. --Ermell 12:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sharpness is less than perfect but the grain is worse. --MB-one 13:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent photo. It would be interesting if the critics showed how to do it better. -- Spurzem 16:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support We should not punish nature photographers for uploading their pictures in full resolution and promoting downscaled animal photos at the same time. It has been a consensus to accept reduced resolution for difficult-to-create images, and we have many QI photos of wildlife with less than 3 MPixels, where minor errors have been scaled away. This picture here is an action shot with 600mm focal length, apparently not downscaled and for that it turned out surprisingly good, although not 100% pixel sharp. So it is well above the minimum QI requirements. Btw: Beautyful lighting. --Smial 16:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm a big proponent of evaluating images small and large on an equal footing, but here even the 1800px version is unsharp and grainy. --King of Hearts 20:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 Comment The linked 1800px version has strong jpg compression artifacts. I don't know why the quality of the downscaled version is so low, but the artifacts visually amplify the slight noise in the sky quite a lot. --Smial 08:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
By further inspection found a dust spot that should be removed. Therefore I temporarily removed my vote. --Smial 08:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Smial: Ich wundere und ärgere mich täglich aufs Neue, wie hervorragende Bilder abgeschmettert werden, während anderes wie oben die Zeichnungen auf blauem Grund und primitivste Knipsbilder hochgejubelt werden. Gruß -- Spurzem 10:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ssprmannheim and Spurzem: wenn der Staubfleck weg ist (das ist einfach zu beheben und betrifft eins der tatsächlich objektiven Kriterien hier auf QIC, was man nicht wegdiskutieren kann) erneuere ich mein "pro" sofort. -- Smial 10:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Smial: Und warum entfernst Du den Fleck nicht netterweise? Ich habe dieser Tage einen verzerrten Kirchturm in die richtige Perspektive gebracht, bevor ich mein „good quality“ setzte. Allerdings bin ich nicht ganz sicher, ob solche Korrekturen erlaubt sind, vermute aber, dass nichts dagegen einzuwenden ist. Andererseits bitte ich bei meinen Bildern regelmäßig darum, nichts ohne mein Einverständnis zu verändern. Gruß -- Spurzem 11:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Das habe ich vor Jahren noch häufig gemacht, auch bei QI-Kandidaten. Einige solche Bearbeitungen sind auch QI geworden. Ein Haken ist, daß ich mit dem GIMP immer noch auf Kriegsfuß stehe. Weiterhin gibt es hier eine Menge Teilnehmer, die kategorisch jegliche Veränderungen an ihren Bildern ablehnen, und ich habe weder Lust noch Zeit, die Vorlieben und Ansichten jedes einzelnen vorher zu erforschen, noch habe ich ein Interesse daran, in unerfreuliche Diskussionen hineingezogen zu werden, falls ich irgendwelche Eitelkeiten verletze. Ich habe den Staubfleck im Bild markiert, das ist meine Hilfestellung. --Smial 13:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I resized it to 1800px in Photoshop myself and it looks to be right on the edge of acceptability, so I'll withdraw my opposition and remain  Neutral. -- King of Hearts 22:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Palauenc05 15:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO QI. Wonderful picture! --Dnalor 01 07:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose QI on sharpness (just) but overprocessed. Charlesjsharp 14:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness, dust spot, overprocessed, nice capture and a tricky shot but unfortunately IMHO below the bar Poco a poco 18:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Question to the critics: Have you ever succeeded to take a comparable photo? -- Spurzem 21:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Please look now: I removed the terrible (?) lack of dust spot. It was quite easy. -- Spurzem 22:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Now again  Support dustspot disappeared. --Smial 09:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Kritzolina 09:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 19:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)