Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 19 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Tschiertschen (1350 meter). Zicht op bergen vanaf het balkon van het hotel 07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tschiertschen (1350 meters). View of mountains from the hotel's balcony. The clouds play around the mountaintops.
    --Famberhorst 06:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The clouds at the center ruins the composition IMO, sorry --Cvmontuy 03:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the clouds are a great element in the composition. A bit noisy but the quality is sufficient for me. --King of Hearts 05:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the clouds are part of the composition. I'd like to see some noise reduction on the trees, though. I'm unconvinced that this picture is technically a QI right now. -- Ikan Kekek 07:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Noise Reduction Thank you.--Famberhorst 15:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Moderate  Support now. -- Ikan Kekek 20:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 12:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Cepëi_Tschapit_Moos_am_Joch_Ladinser_Moos_Seiser_Alm_Südtirol.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Moos am Joch and Ladinser Moos wetlands on the Seiser Alm, South Tyrol - - Schlern-Rosengarten Nature Park. --Moroder 20:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too much noise --Capricorn4049 23:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Where are the noisy pixels? --Moroder 04:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Very large file, but it looks to me like there's a very thin halo above the mountaintops. -- Ikan Kekek 01:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment there is always a 3-5 pixels (irrelevant) halo on a very contrasted interface. I have discussed this innumerable times on QIC --Moroder 16:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I haven't been part of any of those conversations. You're saying you can't remove the halo, or that you just don't want to remove it for some reason? -- Ikan Kekek 04:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm saying that a halo like this is always on my digital pictures and I don't think I use a cheap camera or cheap optics. It's a digital artifact but irrelevant since the size is much less than 1/1000 of the picture. Should I complain with Nikon? ;-). Cheers --Moroder 09:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I guess this artifact is not obvious a lot of the time. I usually don't notice it but did this time. I appreciate your comments and would like to see some remarks by other people, so that we can get further perspectives here. -- Ikan Kekek 20:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --W.carter 12:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


File:Tussen Schweich en Hetzerath, panorama foto6 2017-05-30 09.43.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination between Schweich and Hetzerath-Rheinland Pfalz, road panorama --Michielverbeek 22:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too much noise --Capricorn4049 23:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I think the horizon is a bit misty --Michielverbeek 06:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support per Michielverbeek's comment. -- Ikan Kekek 01:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 00:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The footpath/bikeway is sharp, the background is hazy. Maybe it could be improved a bit (dehaze/clarity/midtone contrast) but OK for a QI IMO. --Basotxerri 11:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 12:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


File:Parthenon west wall reconstruction 2017.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Perspective shot of the Parthenon's reconstruction.--Peulle 08:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Needs perspective correction. --Palauenc05 11:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment No, not this one. The perspective is intentional at this distance.--Peulle 13:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Intentional or not, it can easily be corrected, even from this distance. --Palauenc05 14:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Easily? I disagree and I'd challenge you to try... Anyway, it's not supposed to be "corrected" - this is a photo where the perspective is intentional.--Peulle 06:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for that "challenge", however I definitely won't work on your image. I wouldn't promote it anyway due to the unfortunate crop on the left side. --Palauenc05 15:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would like to hear some more opinions on this. I fear we're getting close to demanding perspective "corrections" on everything, even things that are shot from an angle that precludes such adjustments.--Peulle 20:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Calling it a "Perspective shot" does not justify that unnecessary distortion. And, as mentioned above, the bad crop on the left side is not acceptable for QI. --Palauenc05 21:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support it illustrate the reconstruction - crop is right and distortion no needed. --Ralf Roleček 11:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ralf Roleček --Selbymay 07:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is enough space to go a few steps backwards to get a better view. --Berthold Werner 08:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I did that with other shots. On this one, I went closer on purpose to get this perspective.--Peulle 11:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
But I'm not convinced by this view. --Berthold Werner 12:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Your opinion is entirely acceptable. :) --Peulle 09:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment if the Pantheon is the subject then it isn't a QI to me (left crop). If it is the crane probably it would be Poco a poco 16:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Poco: (ahem) You mean the "Parthenon", Sir? ;-P Thanks for your opinion, though.--Peulle (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Perspective is obvisously intended. Some composition issues (crane not well visually separated from background), but this is only personal matter of taste, no reason for decline. --Smial 08:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am genuinely interested in seeing the result of this. It will help in determining the community's standard re perspectives, as it's a borderline case.--Peulle 10:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 12:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


File:Birqash_Camel_Market,_photo_by_Hatem_Moushir_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Birqash Camel Market --Hatem Moushir 05:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. This kind of crop does not work. And errors in descrption page. --XRay 06:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment error is now adjsted , about crop , you mean from left or it can’t be corrected ? -Hatem Moushir 09:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Legs of the camels missing, person in front cropped, half person at the left. --XRay 18:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per XRay.--Peulle 19:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Ermell 19:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Sorry, I find the crops too jarring, per XRay. -- Ikan Kekek 04:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support No FP but QI for me -- Spurzem 11:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per above, the crop looks to randomed Poco a poco 16:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --W.carter 09:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)