Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 18 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Sea_stacks_-_Hopewell_Rocks.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sea stacks, Hopewell Rocks, New Brunswick, Canada. --The Cosmonaut 03:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too dark, blurry --Podzemnik 03:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Podzemnik. Unfavorable conditions. --Milseburg 06:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, though the motif is certainly striking and impressive in itself. -- Ikan Kekek 11:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Wandeling_over_het_Hulshorsterzand-Hulshorsterheide_07-03-2020._(actm.)_51.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Walk across the Hulshorsterzand/Hulshorsterheide. View over Hulshorsterzand/Hulshorsterheide.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • WB off, description? --Kallerna 08:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful image and good quality -- Spurzem 11:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 12:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. The dramatization of the sky by darkening it, leads to relatively strong noise and unnatural halos at the two solitary trees on the left and right, which rise into the sky. But in contrast to the picture below, the white balance here is ok for me. --Smial 13:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Noise reduction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality. Maybe the nimbus clouds are a bit blue, but I wasn't there and won't second-guess that. -- Ikan Kekek 00:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Wandeling_over_het_Hulshorsterzand-Hulshorsterheide_07-03-2020._(actm.)_38.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Walk across the Hulshorsterzand/Hulshorsterheide. Solitaire Fagus sylvatica in the drifting sand area.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB off, description? --Kallerna 08:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I fixed the description, unless you aren't willing to tolerate "Walk across the Hulshorsterzand/Hulshorsterheide." All the photos that Agnes and Dominicus take during their hikes are labeled "Walk [somewhere]" and then the specific thing we're looking at. What's the problem with the white balance? Do you perhaps think the ground is too yellow? Because otherwise, it's a good photo and I would normally vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek 12:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Why would the description start with something like that? It's definitely not an explanation of what the file represents. The photo is too yellow. --Kallerna 09:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I need no explanation to see what photo shows. The color obviously is due to the position of the sun. -- Spurzem 11:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment So should we just upload photos without descriptions? Please check your monitor if you think colour balance is right. --Kallerna 15:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB off. Not an early morning or late evening shot, and also no desert dust in the air, that would lead to such yellowish WB. --Smial 13:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. WB. correction Thank you for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks much more natural now. --Smial 23:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - The previous version was more vivid, but if this is the one people prefer, OK. -- Ikan Kekek 00:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Cecil_Kings_Hut,_Wangapeka_Track,_Kahurangi,_New_Zealand_03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cecil Kings Hut, Wangapeka Track, Kahurangi --Podzemnik 00:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 02:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
    Do we really need four so similar QIs? Criteria:"Carefully select your best images to nominate". --Kallerna 08:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Whether we need such images of course is another question. -- Spurzem 11:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, and I can actually imagine usages of this photo. --Aristeas 09:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very good. Once upon a time, there was a cabin in a forest clearing... :-) -- Ikan Kekek 11:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 19:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

File:War_cemetery_for_World_war_II_on_the_cemetery_Matzleinsdorf_in_Vienna,_Austria-grave_stone-group_right_PNr°0629.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination war cemetry in Matzleinsdorf Vienna, Austria --D-Kuru 22:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Some gravestones are out of focus --Podzemnik 02:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  CommentThe purpose never was to have all of them completly in focus. I used an apature of 4 to create a little bit more DOF than 2.8, but just not all of them --D-Kuru 06:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - If the one in front were in focus and the others were somewhat blurred, I'd be fine with that, but the one that seems most nearly in focus is the one with the word "FAMILIEN" above the hedges. I'm having trouble understanding the compositional point in having that level of background be the focal point. -- Ikan Kekek 06:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment The text on the gravestone in the very back is in focus. So first gravestone in focus, every other is blurred = OK; last grave stone in focus, every other is blurred =  Not OK. Sorry, but this doesn't sound very consistent.
Add compositional point: Point is to give shift some of the attention to the back row, to give a feeling of depth and a visual feeling for the space aquired by the objects. After all, this is a war cemetery for 341 fallen russian soldiers of the second world war. The idea was to not look at the image and see a big gravestone in the front and many gravestones follow, but to look at the image and see that much space is already taken by gravestones/dead soldiers before you even get to the last row.
--D-Kuru 11:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, you've given a clear compositional rationale for your decision. I've crossed out my opposing vote. One can't tell from this photo, though, that there are anything like 341 Russian soldiers buried there. But that's a bit beside the point. -- Ikan Kekek 12:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it's hard to give a good full picture of the site. I also did not want to step on other graves or climb gravestones just to get a good shot. A drone would clearly help here. To improve the description I have added the corresponding item on wikidata where this information is stored. I'll also provide a little more detailed descriptions in the future. --D-Kuru 21:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - I still find that this style of selective focus produces a strange effect on me, but I take the point that it's a legitimate compositional idea and I'd rather that this nomination not be decided by a single vote, so I'm supporting it to tie the vote and allow others to determine the fate of the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek 00:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Whatever the rationale for the focus, the blurry result is not QI. Charlesjsharp 08:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

File:View_towards_Mt_Patriarch,_Wangapeka_Track,_Kahurangi,_New_Zealand_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View towards Mt Patriarch, Wangapeka Track --Podzemnik 00:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --The Cosmonaut 02:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose over exposed, washed out. Seven Pandas 16:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Fairly bright sunlight, but very good and a solid QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 14:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed. --Kallerna 08:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. A tiny little bit overexposed, but very usable and overall good. --Aristeas 10:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I hope it's better now. --Podzemnik 09:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support It's better now ;-) --Smial 11:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

File:A320 HB-JXR (2014) - Aile (1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Wing of an A320 in flight. --Gzen92 12:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Review
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose Please address the issues from previous nomination first. Also check the tilt --Podzemnik 00:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Sorry, noise reduction performed on the three photos. Gzen92 12:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Seven Pandas 23:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Over 50 % of the photo is of empty sky, not the wing. --Kallerna 08:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
    ✓ Done It's true. Gzen92 12:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 07:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Rosa_'Grande_Amore',_Bad_Wörishofen,_Alemania,_2019-06-20,_DD_21.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: 'Grande Amore' Rose, Bad Wörishofen, Germany --Poco a poco 15:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment A bit too dark IMO. --Tournasol7 17:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Severe posterization in this version has destroyed the 3-dimensionality of the photo. The previous version was also seriously posterized, though not as badly. I would decline this image if the problem can't be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek 07:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded another version retouching the curves, but I cannot see any signs of posterization on my monitor --Poco a poco 12:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - It sure looks flattened to me. I'm going to decline. Feel free to have a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 05:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, ok, let's discuss, please --Poco a poco 09:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Intense red is always a problem for digital cameras and a challenge even in the times of photography on slide film. The original image version may appear a little dark, but of all three current versions, it has the best reproduction of the red tones. --Smial 09:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose flat, unsharp, lack of details Seven Pandas 21:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I prefer the first version. --Pandakekok9 13:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Info Ok, I went back to the first version --Poco a poco 07:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment - The innermost petals are good in this version, but the outer petals bug me and still look posterized to me, with regions of one shade of red that has no real texture or differentiation and darker regions that have texture. Basically, the middle-tone reds are posterized through most of the flower. -- Ikan Kekek 09:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support now. Acceptable, because it is really hard to catch those colours. --Smial 11:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak support It's a bit dark indeed, but this is acceptable enough for QI. The brightened versions ruined the photo. --Pandakekok9 02:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support good for me now. --Aristeas 08:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  OpposeNo detail Charlesjsharp 20:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 07:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)