Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 18 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Larnaca 01-2017 img18 Chrysopolitissa Church.jpg

[edit]

* Oppose Sorry, but let's discuss: the total unsharpness of the upper part of the tower is seen even at 25%, to say nothing about 100%. This issue and also unnatural perspective of the tower obviously say that a camera location was too close to the building. Also the sharpness of the left section of the building is weak. Dmitry Ivanov 06:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 20:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brazil-Ibirapuera-Auditorium-1030451PS.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of the Ibirapuera Auditorium in São Paulo --Ermell 10:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Posterization lines on the red carpet can be clearly seen at full size, but even at the size of my laptop monitor, I can see blotches of posterized shades on the red carpet if I look carefully. Perhaps this is fixable, but for now, I oppose. -- Ikan Kekek 11:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, QI isn't FP --Jacek Halicki 14:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice photo, but the colour bleed (is that what it's called?) is a problem; the transition between the low fence wall on the right and its background, for instance, look like they're melting together.--Peulle 07:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 20:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Garten-5730.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stieglitz Weibchen bei der Futtersuche.--Fischer.H 18:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Wrong category. --Palauenc05 18:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The category has been changed now. Thanks, that's much better. But maybe one of the subcategories would be more precise. Sorry, I'm not a biologist, somone else may look at it. --Palauenc05 12:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavorable composition --Milseburg 10:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - The composition may be unorthodox for this site, but it's hardly terrible. I'd like someone else to rule on the categorization, but on the basis of quality and composition, it looks alright to me. -- Ikan Kekek 10:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the composition is OK given that this is a distance shot and that the bird is sitting on a plant. Categories are fine (species name), and general quality OK for QI standards; the only problem I have is the slightly low resolution, but again that's OK since it's taken with a zoom lens from some distance away and then cropped.--Peulle 07:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support -- DerFussi 07:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment In my opionion the unsharp yellow blossom in the foreground is too dominant. It spoils the QI. --Milseburg 13:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support per Peulle --Sandro Halank 20:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 20:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Eschrichtius_robustus_ALM_1702_p2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tale of a female Gray whale, Puerto Adolfo López Mateos, Baja California, México --Cvmontuy 13:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky is too noisy and overdenoised. --A.Savin 16:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A.Savin is right: Please edit the sky. However, this is a very good photo of the whale's tail, which is the subject. I'm leaning toward supporting, but it's better if you edit the picture. -- Ikan Kekek 00:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have recomposed and reprocessed the picture regards --Cvmontuy 02:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Sky is OK now. Good photo of the subject - the whale's tail. -- Ikan Kekek 11:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support o.k. for me--Ermell 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Better now --A.Savin 11:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 20:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Crepuscular_rays_and_iridescent_clouds_during_snowfall.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Crepuscular rays and iridescent clouds during snowfall. --W.carter 18:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose It seems that nobody wanted to review this one... I've looked at it over and over again and I'm not sure what to think about it. The moon is sharp, the rest doesn't seem so. Perhaps it's not possible to get that better, the clouds sharper but overall it doesn't convince me as a QI, sorry. The fact that the moon is too close to the image border doesn't help either. --Basotxerri 10:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking into this. It was a tricky photo to shoot since there was a strong wind and the clouds were racing by very quickly. It is not the moon but the sun, the photo is taken around three in the afternoon. The weather that day was interesting to say the least. ;) If you don't mind, I'd like to discuss this one. I'll see if I can sharpen it all a bit too. Thanks! --W.carter 13:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's OK, you're absolutely right to do so. --Basotxerri 18:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixed Sharper and better contrast in place. --W.carter 14:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - QI in my opinion, and a possible FP candidate. -- Ikan Kekek 11:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks nice, but all those spots (dust spots?) are disturbing. Can they be cloned out?--Peulle 11:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: All the "spots" are snowflakes, the clue is in the title (and categories): ... during snowfall ... :) Photos of crepscular rays while it is snowing are rare, which is why I took the photos. Sorry, but I'm not going to clone out the reason for the photo. There is a whole series of them, check the categories. --W.carter 11:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Very well, I accept your explanation.  Support --Peulle 22:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Very like a watercolor. Daniel Case 05:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 20:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)