Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 16 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Godley_Statue,_Christchurch,_New_Zealand_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Godley Statue, Christchurch --Podzemnik 03:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice and good quality. --Aristeas 10:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spot on left foot. --Steindy 12:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I do not see the indicated problem --George Chernilevsky 12:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Maybe you should take a closer look at the photo and do not judge by the name. The dust spot is also easy to find, as it usually finds itself in the same area. But of course, you can only find the mistakes with me. --Steindy 16:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
      • @Steindy Again, I'm kindly asking you to take a break from the project or someone will soon or later force you to take it. You keep looking for dust spots everywhere and this is the third time that you're claiming a piece of shadow on my picture to be a dust spot. Perhaps taking a break would allow you to gain the perspective again and realize why we all here. All the best, --Podzemnik 21:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Funny photo, good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 09:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree, good shot --PantheraLeo1359531 10:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Cannot find the spot. --Smial 10:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good framing, good lighting and exposure, suitably sharp. (I've spent 120 seconds hunting for a dust spot around the statue feet and cannot see anything even in pixel-for-pixel view.)--Bobulous 19:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Did not find dust spot. --Axel 13:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Avon_River_along_New_Brighton_Road,_Christchurch,_New_Zealand.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Avon River along New Brighton Road, Christchurch --Podzemnik 03:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Clear streak formation in the water and the usual dust spot. --Steindy 10:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - I don't understand. The water looks normal to me, and if there is indeed a dust spot, I can't see it, though I do see a bird in the distance. To me, this photo looks very good. -- Ikan Kekek 08:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I see no lack. -- Spurzem 10:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Steindy: Could you please add image notes for the dust spot and the streak formation? We can’t spot them ;-). --Aristeas 14:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. Whereby you can see the streak formation already in the reduced view. --Steindy (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! Well, I agree that there is a dust spot (or something similar). But the streak formation I would have regarded just as some reflection of the two trees. What do other people think? --Aristeas 18:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Then it must be a very, very long reflection over the middle of the picture. This again does not match the state of the sun. --Steindy 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've removed what was claimed to be a dust spot. I don't know about the streak formation, to me it's OK. Please note that Steindy has been blocked for a week for disruptive behaviour. --Podzemnik 04:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks for removing the potential dust spot ;–). IMHO very good. --Aristeas 09:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support after rework. The dust spot was a dustspot, but the "streaks" are reflections. It does not need the sun to have reflections on water surface. --Smial (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Ford_Thunderbird_1959_Ebern_2019_6200537.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Radiator of a Ford Thunderbird built in 1959 at the vintage car meeting 2019 in Ebern, Germany --Ermell 10:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Composition: The bottom crop I find too tight, and overall the image doesn't seem to have a very clear subject. --Peulle 11:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. --Ermell 22:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but i agree in this case --Andrew J.Kurbiko 10:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed a very special composition, but good technical quality. --Smial 15:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support good composition. --Ralf Roletschek 01:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial. --Aristeas 14:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

File:River_Avon_in_New_Brighton_during_sunset,_New_Zealand.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination River Avon in New Brighton during sunset --Podzemnik 01:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Heavy chromatic noise and (the almost usual) dust spot. --Steindy 19:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Yes, a dust spot to the left of a lamppost should be fixed, but then it will be a QI. I don't see any heavy noise at all. -- Ikan Kekek 05:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Steindy. --Carschten 15:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've removed the dustspot and denoised a bit. --Podzemnik 04:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell 07:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aristeas 09:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Podzemnik, there's a strange ring right next to the lamppost that's 2nd from the bottom of the picture frame, where the dust spot used to be. -- Ikan Kekek 09:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Sunset_on_The_Shard_&_City_Hall_across_Thames_river_in_London.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset on The Shard & City Hall across Thames river in London --IM3847 04:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Vengolis 06:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Not made by a Commoner, so not eligible. --Tsungam 11:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Yes, per se ineligible. Can this be speedily declined? -- Ikan Kekek 05:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined George Chernilevsky 16:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Rheden,_dode_boom_op_de_Posbank_IMG_2285_2019-08-25_07.50.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rheden-NL, dead tree at the Posbank --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 07:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow blights too much of the central object, cutting the tree in half. --Bobulous 18:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - There are also diagonals in the sky. I find these things interesting, not a blight. Good quality to me. - Ikan Kekek 09:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp, natural colours, good composition. --Smial 09:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support well done for the difficult light conditions; QI to me. --Carschten 15:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Sea_Star_560,_Nacka_(_1090791).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sea Star 560 on Saltsjön, Nacka --MB-one 04:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Schönes Bild mit dem Hund im Fahrtwind, aber das Boot sollte bisschen dunkler sein. -- Spurzem 09:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Frage: Warum sollte denn ein schneeweißes Boot dunkler sein? Mit gefällt es so wie es ist. --Manfred Kuzel 11:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Manfred Kuzel: Ganz einfache Antwort: …, weil man auch an einem schneeweißen Boot Konturen deutlich erkennen soll. -- Spurzem 21:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Ich erkenne alle Korrekturen und daher  Support Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 07:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Es its fein für mich. And don't expect any more German out of me. :-) -- Ikan Kekek 09:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Milseburg 19:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Jerusalem_-_20190205-DSC_0971.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jerusalem–Yitzhak Navon railway station. By User:Ilya Varlamov --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 12:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise level to high IMHO --Poco a poco 20:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco. -- Ikan Kekek 05:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco.
  •  Oppose per Poco. Struck unsigned vote above. --Peulle 08:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Just ok for me --A.Savin 11:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The high ISO setting was obviously necessary, and for ISO3200 it still looks pretty good. --Smial 01:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Seven Pandas 01:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unnötig hohe ISO und Rauschen. --Ralf Roletschek 01:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

File:March_of_Ukraine's_Defenders_on_Independence_Day_in_Kyiv,_2019_153.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination March of Ukraine's Defenders on Independence Day in Kyiv, 2019 --Ввласенко 10:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Its a portrait of a guy, while more than 50% of space is occupied by someones back for no reason. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 21:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. I would suggest some cropping, but I think it's a good example of street photography and should not be judged according to criteria that apply to portrait photography in a photo studio. --Smial 09:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment I consider criticism fair and therefore redid the picture. -- Ввласенко 13:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
      •  Comment Perfect, thx. --Smial 01:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support This one works. The guy with his back turned is not too disturbing since he is not cropped, and the man facing the camera is well framed.--Peulle 08:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

File:March_of_Ukraine's_Defenders_on_Independence_Day_in_Kyiv,_2019_345.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination March of Ukraine's Defenders on Independence Day in Kyiv, 2019 345 --Ввласенко 08:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is a portrait but mostly shows someones back. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 13:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The guy on the left is too disturbing here imo.--Peulle 09:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can live with distracting elements on portraits like this, but not with that unsharp guy in the foreground constitute 30% of the image. --Carschten 11:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - The opportunistic portrait of the man in the center and right is great, and I think that considering this was street photography, it's a good picture, regardless of the presence of the unsharp man facing away from the camera. -- Ikan Kekek 22:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --Smial 23:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I understand that the traditions of the classic portrait are broken. But this was done on purpose, because the two figures complement each other as a two-sided portrait. The inscription on the shirt as the signature on the photo. -- Ввласенко (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment I think the inscription is cropped and not really readable --Andrew J.Kurbiko 21:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
      •  Comment Only the name of the battalion is cut off (from below), because, firstly, it is read on the chevron of the main object, and secondly, so that the format is not too stretched. The rest of the inscription fully retains its meaning. -- Ввласенко 13:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --Aristeas 10:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Are there other voices? --Milseburg 14:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The portrait is good, but the back of the other person is a little bit distracting --PantheraLeo1359531 16:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I find the back of the person disturbing.--Ermell 10:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)