Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 27 2019

Consensual review

edit

File:Paris_Air_Show_2019,_Le_Bourget_(SIAE1212).jpg

edit

  • Nomination VIP vehicle at Paris Air Show 2019 --MB-one 12:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The vehicle is blury --Poco a poco 13:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support The vehicle is in motion. So I think it is sharp enough. -- Spurzem 17:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. -- Ikan Kekek 07:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco a poco: blurry. Shutter speed should have been shorter. --Carschten 10:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco a poco, sorry -- George Chernilevsky 11:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco. Panning would have helped. --Smial 11:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose yep.--Peulle 12:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 11:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Anson_Chan_and_news_microphones_20051219.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Anson Chan (陳方安生), former Chief Secretary of Hong Kong. This photo encapsulates her iconic smile. (by User:Fuzheado) --Roy17 13:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 14:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • {{O}} Flickr images can't be a QI. --A1Cafel 02:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • {{O}} - No, they can't unless they're made by a Commoner. This one evidently is not. -- Ikan Kekek 07:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • {{O}} No discussion necessary - this is not a case where the Guidelines say that QIs "should" have something, but instead say that QIs "must have been created by a Commons user." Therefore, even if this image were promoted, the QI status would have been removed afterwards.--Peulle 13:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew J.Kurbiko, A1Cafel, Ikan Kekek, and Peulle: the flickr user is User:Fuzheado (w:Andrew Lih). He's the same person!--Roy17 13:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I struck out these three oppose votes because the reason given was false. Precedent: Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Archive/2011-01#Flickr_question.--Roy17 17:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Rather small, I don´t think that sharpness and composition reach the QI standards. Maybe VI. Let´s keep on having a discussion. --Milseburg 19:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficent quality overall. Lacking sharpness, unsatisfactory composition. --Tsungam 07:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Not sharp enough per others. -- Ikan Kekek 19:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Haalderen,_de_Linge_naar_het_zuidoosten_bij_het_Goudsbloempad_Noord_IMG_2770_2019-11-08_08.03.jpg

edit

  • Nomination near Haalderen-NL, river the de Linge to the south east from the Goudsbloempad Noord --Michielverbeek 07:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment I love the atmosphere, but some parts look underexposed. If you agree, could you work on those without making the bright area where the sun is more blinding? -- Ikan Kekek 15:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have improved the not-air area by shadow reducement and making it brighter. Thanks a lot because I don't experience with developing this kind of photos --Michielverbeek 20:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks. It's still very dark in places, especially the left bank. I don't feel very confident in promoting the photo yet, but since I'm unsure what the photo will look like if you do further shadow reduction, I'll give a very unsure  Support vote. However, I really would welcome a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 08:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ok, I put to discussion, other opinions are welcome --Michielverbeek 21:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Looking on it in a dark surrounding, I think it's ok. --Milseburg 19:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 11:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Blick_vom_Hotel_Park_Inn_zum_Roten_Rathaus.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Berlin: View from Park Inn to the brick built town hall "Rotes Rathaus" and Church Saint Nikolai. --JoachimKohler-HB 22:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion

* Oppose Grauschleier --Ralf Roletschek 23:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  •  Support Das sieht natürlich aus. Ich glaube das ist gute Qualität. --George Chernilevsky 23:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very good. So what if it was hazy that day? -- Ikan Kekek 04:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a nice scene, it's sharp and detailed, and it's well lit. The haze actually helps to isolate the items of interest in the foreground.--Bobulous 20:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • OK Gegenmeinungen akzeptiert. --Ralf Roletschek 20:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 11:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Уламки_мацев_на_кладовищі_в_Бережанах_P1600677.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Broken matsevas. Jewish cemetery, Berezhany, Ternopil Oblast, Ukraine. By User:Posterrr --Antanana 09:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Aristeas 10:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose posterization --Carschten 16:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Request Carschten, could you give some examples of particularly clear posterization in the photo? I'm not seeing anything obvious. -- Ikan Kekek 04:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ikan Kekek: of course, I added four annotations of the most prominent posterization areas. But there is also minor posterization in almost every shady area. If you see it once, you can't overlook it ;) --Carschten 06:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Thanks, Carschten. But I would have thought that those areas were simply pitch black because the sensor couldn't pick up any light from them. What do you think happened? -- Ikan Kekek 08:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ikan, I don't know it exactly, so I have to guess. Either the camera was overstrained with the lighting conditions or (most likely) there were shortcomings in the image processing (maybe too harsh brightening of the shadows). Anyway, the posterization isn't normal and shouldn't be there. --Carschten 10:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support It looks QI to me --Cvmontuy 13:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - On reflection, regardless of what's causing the pitch black areas, I think it's a legitimate choice by the photographer and doesn't hurt a very well-composed and moving photo. -- Ikan Kekek 20:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Old man reading newspaper early in the morning at Basantapur-IMG 6800.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Old man reading news paper early in the morning at Basantapur --Bijay chaurasia 06:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 07:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus misplaced on the hand, overexposed newspaper. Might be fixable. --Gyrostat 13:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Probably the photographer has placed the focus intentionally on hand and newspaper because the newspaper is the centre of attention; IMHO this is a valid option here. The idea that the focus must always be on the eye is a good rule of thumb, but we should not make ourselves slaves to rules ;–). Of course it would be good to dial down the exposure of the newspaper a bit. --Aristeas 08:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks fine at full screen, and even at 100% the face is sufficiently detailed for an environmental portrait. The exposure on the newspaper looks fine to me.--Bobulous 21:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support per Bobulous. --Smial 11:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - My main objection is that parts of the newspaper are blown and therefore illegible (if I could understand it, which I can't), but in the context of the entire picture, I think that's a relatively minor point. The point is to take a portrait of a man reading a newspaper, not for every word of the open pages of the newspaper to be legible to the viewer. -- Ikan Kekek 20:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Wurmlingen_(Rottenburg)_Luftbild.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Aerial image of Wurmlingen (Rottenburg), Germany --Laserlicht 13:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment A very interesting photo! There are some stitching errors, I have marked 2 of them with image notes. Could you please fix these (and maybe other) stitching errors? Thank you! --Aristeas 14:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thank you! I tried to fix it manually. --Laserlicht 14:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
      •  Support Thank you! IMHO it’s good now. The partial darkness is due to the weather, and the leaning lines due to the projection. --Aristeas 15:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I cant cope with the distortion / alignment (bent horizon, tilt of the houses) while watching. Also a bit noisy. Let´s hear other voices. --Milseburg 12:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment The distortion comes from the fisheye-projection. I was close to the village. Because of this I've choosed this type of projection. --Laserlicht 17:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I think this looks great: it's detailed, well exposed and coloured despite the gloomy sky, and the scene is very absorbing. It makes no attempt to hide the fact it's a taken with a fisheye lens, so people will either love or loathe the severe curvature distortion, but I like the way the curvature follows the path of the roads linking the towns.--Bobulous (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Carschten 21:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Ruines_of_Carthage.jpg

edit

  • Nomination Sunset and Golden hour over Carthage archeological site --IssamBarhoumi 13:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 14:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now - looks quite underexposed to me. Let's get a third opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 15:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan --Milseburg 12:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan. @IssamBarhoumi: Could you try to make it a bit brighter? --Aristeas 09:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree that it looks unnaturally dark.--Bobulous 21:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 11:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Großweikersdorf_Höllgraben_4.jpg

edit

  • Nomination: Objekt in der Kellergasse „Höllgraben" in Großweikersdorf (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 07:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Review  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 07:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
     OpposeI disagree. Sorry, but the main object seems to be out of focus... --Tournasol7 07:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Support - Quality is OK to me, but the description is not. You've got to do better than "object". -- Ikan Kekek 06:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I changed my vote, but I think the new count may be wrong. Tournasol7, did you intend to oppose? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I corrected my vote. Tournasol7 20:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per tournasol17. The focus is on the stems and plants in the foreground, and the depth of field does not quite reach to the brickwork. --Smial 15:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment At aperture 9, the necessary depth of focus should be given to this distance, which is also the case. --Manfred Kuzel 07:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Enough for QI. --Steindy 18:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Steindy: You noticed that I had already closed this nomination as having expired its time limit, right? Then you come in and overrule it 7 hours after the time has elapsed - that's not really how we do things. If you want to vote on a picture in CR, you really should be able to do so within 8 days.--Peulle 07:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes I vote earlier; Especially when I am blocked... --Steindy 22:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Steindy 18:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)