Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 13 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Burgwindheim_Kirchenorgel_076630.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Organ in the Parish Church of St. James in Burgwindheim --Ermell 17:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Absolutely fantastic resolution! No flaws detected (maybe the blown-out windows, but they are secondary, and there could be a little more saturation for my taste). Great Image! --Hendric Stattmann 18:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    There is no problem with the windows - they are not blown out, just white glass. However, there are postprocessing issues, visible as outlines in the railings. --Cccefalon 05:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)✓ Done
    Tried to solve the problems and hope it worked.--Ermell 22:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, this is working. Thank you for fixing the issue. As the author resolved the issue same day and I was the only opposer, I speedily set the promote tag. --Cccefalon 05:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 12:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_Santa_Susana,_Parque_Alameda,_Santiago_de_Compostela,_España,_2015-09-23,_DD_61.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St Susanne church, Alameda Park, Santiago de Compostela, Spain --Poco a poco 00:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unnatural geometric correction. Restoring all vertical lines is not always a good solution. -- Alvesgaspar 15:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd like to discuss this, as well. All this is ridiculous! If I don't correct the verticals it isn't a QI, if I do it isn't either. And, at least in this case I don't think that the POV was somehow wrong. --Poco a poco 21:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I totally understand your frustration, dear Poco a poco. There seems indeed to be some diverging opinions over time about the requirements regarding perspective correction. My opinion is as follows: Perspective induced distortion should be corrected in such a way that the real proportions of the building are presented to the observer. This usually implies a less-than 100% correction. In your case, a 100% correction was applied, so the building looks like its base is smaller than its top. Since I assume the base has the same dimensions than the top in reality, the "encyclopedic" nature of WC should accurately represent this. I hope a consensus can be reached in this important issue and included in the official guidelines. Anyhow, I am looking forward to see more of your high quality contributions. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support For a building, taken from that distance, we ask for rectilinear lines. Nothing to complain and I can understand Poco, that he is upset. --Cccefalon 04:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is nothing personal here, as you all know: just different opinions of what a QI should be. In this case, not only the geometry looks weird to my eyes but image quality in on the poor side: please check the tower on the right. Alvesgaspar 09:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Correction overdone, pincushion distortion. Btw: Many professional photographers recommend, not to set the perspective correction to 100%, whether by shift lens or by software. --Smial 09:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective over-corrected, fixable. Dark subject in front of a blown out white sky. Probably not fixable. --Hendric Stattmann 16:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 12:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Eudocimus_ruber_(Ibis_rouge)_-_404.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eudocimus ruber (scarlet ibis) in the spectacle of birds in the ZooParc de Beauval in Saint-Aignan-sur-Cher, France. --Medium69 11:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support I like it. especially the composition. --Hubertl 11:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. Charlesjsharp 10:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I can't complain about the sharpness. --Tsungam 08:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Two of the birds (the subject of the photo) are out of focus -- Alvesgaspar 09:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate "surveillance cam" perspective, two rear birds out of focus. Hendric Stattmann 16:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 12:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Trenchtling Alpendohle.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pyrrhocorax graculus flying with a piece of apple. --Clemens Stockner 12:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment A very special moment, but unfortunately, the subject is complete out of focus. Not fixable IMO --Hubertl 13:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment What about it now? --Clemens Stockner 13:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment focus doesn´t mean position of the subject. But it´s a good idea to send it to the consensual review --Hubertl 13:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Impressive photo - but not a QI (sharpness/contrast) --Haneburger 07:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per opposer. + crop, unfortunate.--Jebulon 10:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can literally feel the pain of the photographer here. Could have been a one-in-a-year shot, if only it was in focus. Hendric Stattmann 16:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks for your sympathy, Hendric. But it wasn't that difficult to shoot, you can feed these birds out of your hands ;-) I guess this camera just can't do better. For my non-Wiki purposes the quality is pretty fine. --Clemens Stockner (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 12:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Universitätskrankenhaus (Hamburg-Eppendorf).Gebäude N30.5.20777.ajb.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Building of medical history museum at Hamburg university medical center. --Ajepbah 06:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Clipping on window muntins; weird crops --Daniel Case 05:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New version: muntins without clipping, crop changed, so that the trees are maybe less dominant -> CR.
  •  Support No significant flaws detected, according to the QI guidelines. Hendric Stattmann 16:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support as other supporter --Hubertl 19:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 12:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)