Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 22 2021

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Plaza_del_Ayuntamiento,_Augsburgo,_Alemania,_2021-06-04,_DD_44-46_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Town Hall Square, Augsburg, Germany --Poco a poco 08:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --George Chernilevsky 09:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very nice composition but needs PC as the left tower is leaning right. --ADARSHluck 16:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    There was indeed some room for improvement, ✓ new version uploaded Poco a poco 17:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 04:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 05:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --ADARSHluck 05:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Steindy 11:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Rynek_6-7_in_Zary_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Building at Rynek 6-7 in Żary, Lubusz Voivodeship, Poland. --Tournasol7 04:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: these colours are not natural, poor detail maybe due to denoise -- Alvesgaspar 13:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I saw similar colors outside my window yesterday at sunset, so very much natural to me. --King of Hearts 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Ikan Kekek 04:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry! Maybe good, but I don't like the colours. --Steindy 11:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Steindy 11:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

File:East_Markus_Kirsche_Hannover_Germany_Dec18_DSC05797.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Markus Kirche, east facade (steeple cropped), Hannover --Tagooty 16:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unfortunate lighting causing dull colours, including the subject and the sky. -- Alvesgaspar 20:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Overcast skies and muted colours are part of winter in Hannover. A QI should be natural. Please see new version with removal of some CA and small increase in vibrance. --Tagooty 03:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Please fix name and description. There is no cherry. ;-) --XRay 09:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @XRay: Oops! Description fixed, I'll change the file name after the QIC process is over. --Tagooty 15:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad light.--Jebulon 19:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Pig_farm_Vampula_12.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pig farm in Vampula, Finland. --Kallerna 06:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Bad lighting, focus and composition --Moroder 20:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see anything wrong here, maybe for FP but not QI. --King of Hearts 03:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Moroder: bad lighting, chaotic composition, not in focus. With due respect, I believe QI candidates should be assessed on the basis of their quality not only the absence of defects. Alvesgaspar 11:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I must agree with User:Moroder --Halavar 19:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Pont_des_Trous,_2020_(DSC_0681).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The two towers of the Pont des Trous in December 2020, pending construction of the higher bridge. Photograph taken during golden hour in Tournai, Belgium --Trougnouf 20:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Distracting objects on the foreground. Not enough lighting on the north facade in winter. --V.Boldychev 17:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's construction work and capturing it is part of documenting the process where this bridge which is a symbol of the city is getting torn down and replaced with something that allows for bigger fluvial traffic. Besides, that's irrelevant to QI. If there's something specific I should add light to or increase the overall exposure let me know and I will be happy to edit. --Trougnouf 13:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment If the towers will be changed and the photo should cause a negative emotion, then information about changing the towers and a link should be added to the photo description. --V.Boldychev 16:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The description already mentions the construction, the towers are staying but the bridge has already been taking down and replacement is pending. Further information is available on the Wikipedia articles (fr:Pont des Trous). The description (and articles) on Wikimedia projects should be factual and neutral, not opinionated nor emotional. --Trougnouf 20:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 05:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting, noise overall -- Alvesgaspar 18:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done stronger denoising. I've increased the exposure a bit. I think the lighting is gorgeous. --Trougnouf 20:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Certainly QI for me. --King of Hearts 03:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, a valuable record of construction in progress. --Tagooty 03:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Haardt_an_der_Weinstraße_Mandelring_064_001_2021_07_20.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Former winery, designated 1885
    --F. Riedelio 09:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Halavar 11:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose Distracting car in the foreground. --Palauenc05 21:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The car, neatly parked on the lower left, is absolutely no problem whatsoever. Absolutely good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment For a quality image one could wait until that neat car is gone. Composition is an important aspect of the QI guidelines. I doubt if every shot of buildings with cars in front of them should be promoted. In cities it's sometimes impossible to get a shot without cars, but here it definitely is. --Palauenc05 07:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that on QIC, we should expect people to wait hours or a day or more to photograph a motif without a car that is next to the subject but doesn't block any important part of it (as opposed to the trees and hedges). -- Ikan Kekek 21:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment The car does not obscure the actual subject. With an FPC, I would agree with you, but with QIC, minor design flaws should only be decisive if the decision for a pro or a con is already on the line anyway because of other image flaws. --Smial 12:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't like the car but in 50 years it will be historical --Moroder 12:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support This is a good picture of a building next to a parking space. It is rather normal a car is parked on it. --Velvet 07:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Moroder. Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good image quality, including composition. Cars are part of today's life (when not cropped...) -- Alvesgaspar 18:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't mind the car. It is not disturbing und very common nowadays, and as already said, it can take days until it is driven away --PantheraLeo1359531 15:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

File:St_Medard_church_in_St-Meard_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Medard church in Saint-Méard, Haute-Vienne, France. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 08:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Could be sharper, especially on top. --Steindy 10:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I disagree, it's sharp enough IMO. --Tournasol7 04:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs sharpening. --Goran tek-en 11:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  SupportI think, sharpness is ok. --Milseburg 22:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough to be printed to A4 or even larger. --Smial 11:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Milseburg --Moroder 04:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with the opposers concerning the softness of the top. The composing/framing is not the best either. Alvesgaspar 08:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • : Comment I like the composition. I agree: the sharpening on top is not optimal but considering that it is taken with f/11 QI cannot ask yet to do focus stacking on buildings --Moroder 12:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is OK for me. --King of Hearts 03:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Borderline sharpness, good for QI. --Tagooty 03:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Sts_Pardulphus_and_Martin_church_in_Sussac_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saints Pardulphus and Martin church in Sussac, Haute-Vienne, France. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 08:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Could be sharper, especially on top. --Steindy 10:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I disagree, it's sharp enough IMO. --Tournasol7 04:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs sharpening. --Goran tek-en 11:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I think, sharpness is ok. --Milseburg 22:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough to be printed to A4 or even larger. Please do not oversharpen because of some critics. --Smial 11:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others --Moroder 12:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The top of the tower is indeed quite unsharp, and I suspect that no unsharp mask tool will solve the problem. Maybe another try? Alvesgaspar 08:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cross and tower, writing on monument not sharp. --Tagooty 02:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others. Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support It is natural for the top to be unsharp when perspective correction is applied, because that part is upsampled. The alternative is to downsample the image globally - and when we do that, the image is 100% sharp at 2 MP. -- King of Hearts 03:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Godd quality for me. Unsharpness of the top is minor. --Halavar 19:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Archeopark_Pavlov_in_Summer.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Architectural elements of Archeopark Pavlov museum. Photographed in hot summer light --Miha Peče 05:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Looking at a similar picture I guess that the image is tilted in cw direction, the left window should be, I believe, straight --Poco a poco 08:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Check this one. It's similar but it'S ccw - look lake on right. --Miha Peče 08:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I made tilt correction, small cw rotation. After studying similar perspectives from other, specially photo above. --Miha Peče 07:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop. Let the poor things breathe. Alvesgaspar 20:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Palauenc05 12:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  SupportPer Palauenc05. Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Tagooty 03:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)