Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 17 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Unterleinleiter_Leinleiter-20200726-RM-173933.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The river Leinleiter in Unterleinleiter --Ermell 06:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Technically well done, this image should be cropped a little at the top. Otherwise these cutten leaves are disturbing the composition. --Augustgeyler 17:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)~
  •  Comment Good quality, but I agree with Augustgeyler. It would work better without those leaves on the top edge. --Jakubhal 05:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree, too. Either you should IMO include more of the leaves or crop them out. -- Ikan Kekek 06:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the reviews.--Ermell 21:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support well done! --Augustgeyler 09:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 23:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jakubhal 04:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aristeas 09:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Pskov._The_ensemble_of_the_Pskov_Kremlin.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The ensemble of the Pskov Kremlin from the Pskova river. Pskov Kremlin ensemble: Kremlin, at the confluence of the river.Pskov in the Velikaya river, Pskov, Pskov region --Александр Байдуков 06:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I think the image lost some details on walls in bright points - especially seemd on the tower --Stimoroll 08:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it is tiltet a little cw --Augustgeyler 08:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question Why is the status of this "Discuss" instead of "Nomination", as it doesn't look like anyone voted on this? -- Ikan Kekek 09:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment changed to Nomination --Augustgeyler 11:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and lighing --Tesla 10:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Let's have a discussion now. I think it's worth discussing whether a lot of this photo isn't too noisy and whether a lot of it isn't too red with tinges of purple. Do the lamps really produce that color? -- Ikan Kekek 14:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed side of the tower - lost details. Tilted. --Jakubhal 05:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    •  Support Now, it is ok. ---- Jakubhal 04:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've made a new version from the raw file kindly provided by the author. Consider re-reviewing. @Jakubhal, Ikan Kekek, and Stimoroll: --A.Savin 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Much better. I'm still not sure whether the level of noise is OK or not, so I've simply crossed out my opposing vote. -- Ikan Kekek 07:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit soft now (unavoidable due to noise reduction), but overall OK and a very nice photo. --Aristeas 09:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Amalfi_Cathedral_-_Duomo_di_Amalfi_(4908).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Interior of the Amalfi Cathedral. --Lion-hearted85 22:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose IMHO too much noise for a QI because a high ISO setting --Berthold Werner 09:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 10:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy IMO per Berthold. -- Ikan Kekek 09:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful and atmospheric image, much noise but not too much for me -- Spurzem 11:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support +1 to Spurzem, atmospheric image, noise is still ok -- Tesla 13:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose QI with that amount of noise? Poco a poco 20:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Noisy, but general good quality. Ok for me. Sebring12Hrs (talk)
  •  Oppose per Berthold.--Ermell 19:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version Thank you for your reviews. I agree with you that the image is rather noisy due to the high ISO used. I was quite in a rush there and not in a condition of doing a long exposure. To mitigate this problem, I have uploaded a new version with more selective sharpening and denoising – though I acknowledge that this is still quite a noisy image. --Lion-hearted85 14:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Much better, but still too noisy, I think. You should ping everyone who's voted. -- Ikan Kekek 17:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • An improvement, but still below the QI bar to me, sorry Poco a poco 17:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the improvment but IMHO still to noisy --Berthold Werner 07:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It is still noisy, but over all, seeing this very well composed image, it's acceptable to me. --Augustgeyler 09:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 07:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Figura_św._Jana_Nepomucena,_ulica_Doktora_Józefa_Babińskiego,_Kraków,_20201004_1629_1577.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of John of Nepomuk, Kobierzyn district of Kraków --Jakubhal 18:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Difficult light conditions and the bottom part feels a bit too dark --TommyG 18:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  weak oppose the clutterd background is distracting and the features of the statues in the lower part a hard to spot--Virtual-Pano 19:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. --Ermell 19:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support So do I. The composition seems good based on the real-life conditions.--Peulle 10:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With TommyG and Virtual-Pano. --Augustgeyler 13:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 11:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Light. --Kallerna 20:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Difficult circumstances for a photograph, and this is certainly well-done considering, IMO, and good enough to be a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 05:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Scotch Mist 11:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Difficult light conditions, motiv is not seperated enough from background -- Tesla 15:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Lower part is indeed in the dark but has good contrast. At least on my two calibrated monitors.--Tobias ToMar Maier 21:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Considering difficult light conditions, and the fact that it looks uniquely interesting, I give this a thumbs up per others. --Vincent60030 10:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The difficult lighting and cluttered background could have been minimized by fill-in lighting (or coming back at a different time) and moving to the right or left. --GRDN711 20:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Not possible @GRDN711: , sorry. Right and left there is fence and more bush. This is the best frame you can got. --Jakubhal 04:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Fair comment @Jakubhal: but that still leaves the lighting. I think you did a good job making this image with the conditions present at that moment. I just don't accept that this image merits a QI rating with those conditions as part of it. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)