Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Reviewing 3 nominations with QICvote
Reviewing a nomination with QICvote
Tag: Reverted
Line 100: Line 100:
File:Oberrimbach_St._Sebastian-20210314-RM-162224.jpg|{{/Nomination|Sebastiani Chapel in Oberrimbach --[[User:Ermell|Ermell]] 07:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)|}}
File:Oberrimbach_St._Sebastian-20210314-RM-162224.jpg|{{/Nomination|Sebastiani Chapel in Oberrimbach --[[User:Ermell|Ermell]] 07:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)|}}


File:Paris_Montmartre_Sacré-Cœur_Gargoyle--20140603-RM-160926.jpg|{{/Promotion|Gargoyle at the Sakre Ceur Basilica on Mont Martre in Paris --[[User:Ermell|Ermell]] 07:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)|<br />{{s}} Good quality. --[[User:Aristeas|Aristeas]] 10:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)}}
File:Paris_Montmartre_Sacré-Cœur_Gargoyle--20140603-RM-160926.jpg|{{/Nomination|Gargoyle at the Sakre Ceur Basilica on Mont Martre in Paris --[[User:Ermell|Ermell]] 07:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)|<br />{{s}} Good quality. --[[User:Aristeas|Aristeas]] 10:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)<br />spelling --[[User:Charlesjsharp|Charlesjsharp]] 22:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)}}


File:Lille_17_bd_Vauban.jpg|{{/Promotion|Neoclassical mansion, Boulevard Vauban 17, Lille, France --[[User:Velvet|Velvet]] 06:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)|Good quality. --[[User:Isiwal|Isiwal]] 08:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)}}
File:Lille_17_bd_Vauban.jpg|{{/Promotion|Neoclassical mansion, Boulevard Vauban 17, Lille, France --[[User:Velvet|Velvet]] 06:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)|Good quality. --[[User:Isiwal|Isiwal]] 08:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)}}

Revision as of 22:24, 15 March 2021

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 00:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


March 15, 2021

March 14, 2021

March 13, 2021

March 12, 2021

March 11, 2021

March 10, 2021

March 9, 2021

March 8, 2021

March 7, 2021

March 6, 2021

March 3, 2021

March 2, 2021

February 28, 2021

February 26, 2021

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual Review

File:Wioletta_Grzegorzewska_7631.jpg

  • Nomination Wioletta Grzegorzewska. By User:R.komorowski --Andrew J.Kurbiko 18:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but IMO the shadows of face and neck are too noisy for a portrait. Let's discuss. --LexKurochkin 19:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support This type of noise is irrelevant imo --Moroder 06:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfectly good portrait to me. -- Ikan Kekek 17:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 20:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Commonists 20:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Kamal_molk.jpg

  • Nomination By User:Samoonlight --IamMM 20:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Radomianin 22:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred in some areas, sorry --Radomianin 22:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm undecided, but why is this in CR? -- Ikan Kekek 08:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: I first supported the image but then changed my mind. Unfortunately I could not replace the support icon with the oppose icon, this action caused an Abuse filter action. So I crossed out my support. Still it ended up in the discussion. Can you help me undo my misunderstanding? I am sorry very much -- Radomianin (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I guess I can't help, because I don't understand why you were unable to change the status to Decline. -- Ikan Kekek 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't understand it too, I can only apologize a lot to the users in question. -- Radomianin 11:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I also faced this problem a few days ago. There is a kind of automatic protection. It shows error message and abuse warning if one tries to change promotion to decline. --LexKurochkin 13:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice colors and composition. There are always some out of focus parts in photography --Moroder 06:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --LexKurochkin 09:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Great_dome_of_MIT,_Feb_2021.jpg

  • Nomination Great dome of MIT, Feb 2021 --和平奮鬥救地球 19:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose For an easily and widely photographed subject, the compositon and resolution are insufficient --Filetime 00:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. 4,032 × 3,024 pixels is not that small, I think it's sharp enough (in fact, I'm impressed that that much sharpness was possible with an iPhone SE), and I think the composition is perfectly OK. Your standards seem more FP-like than QI-like to me in this instance. -- Ikan Kekek 00:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK for QI --Isiwal 09:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The composition is questionable, if it would be the only problem, I would say OK, but in the centre of the image there is a problem with the columns. The lights on columns are detailed and look natural, but the shadows lack details and there are artefacts of overprocessing near edges. Sorry, IMO it is not a QI. --LexKurochkin 13:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support There is much uninteresting foreground. But it is like it is. Overall ok for me. --Milseburg 19:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 13:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Befreiungshalle_Kelheim_P1320512.jpg

  • Nomination Befreiungshalle auf dem Michelsberg bei Kelheim/Donau, Bayern, Deutschland. --Fischer.H 15:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disagree. It is noisy, unsharp. Appears like an out-of-camera JPG. At some of the columns, there are cloning errors visible. --A.Savin 16:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, too noisy, lack of sharpness --Isiwal 09:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Isiwal --LexKurochkin 13:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I just want to say, I think this is a great motif and I'd like to see an FP of it. -- Ikan Kekek 01:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 13:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Chiostro_Madonna_Santo_Calegari_il_Vecchio_Santa_Maria_delle_Grazie_Brescia.jpg

  • Nomination Fountain with bronze statue in Brescia. --Moroder 11:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Looks like poorly processed -- most parts are noisy, and if you look at the columns' base, there is a visible border between noisy and NR'ed area. --A.Savin 12:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment I disagree. They are not if you look at normal size. --Moroder 13:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The photo is pretty sharp at 70%, but I see some CA on the left side of the rightmost column in the picture frame and the arch above it. -- Ikan Kekek 09:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please stop pixel peeping. I have worked for years and work very hard for providing Wikimedia with good photographic documentation. Pardon me, this photo is very sharp at 100%, it was taken with a lens which cost me more than 3000 Euros not to speak of the camera. CA here is absolutely irrelevant (guidlines speak or relevant faults) --Moroder 11:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC).
  •  Question If noticing CA at 70% is not OK, at what size do you think people should look at your work? I'm not going to vote for the photo with the CA in it. -- Ikan Kekek 00:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ikan, please! I barely see CA at 100% and even at 100% it's IRRELEVANT and I don't see noise at 100% at all and it's a picture 8,672 × 9,385 pixels in size! People should look first of all at the object, then the composition, then the shadows, the details and and and; that is QI photography the rest is what I said: pixel peeping. Thanks --Moroder 04:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, I noticed it at 70%. Do you want your work judged at 50%? What percentage are you looking for? 40%? I definitely do take the sizes of your photos into account, as you've seen previously, but on this one, I think I may have to defer to others to make their decisions. -- Ikan Kekek 08:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please read my notes. I told you the image is perfect at 100% on my iMac Pro with Photoshop --Moroder 09:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK, well I guess we can chalk that up to having different browsers and different eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 10:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Excuse me if I insist, but I don't look at the photos on the browser. As I said, I check them with Photoshop, maybe that makes the difference. I'm expecting the reviews of others. Cheers :-) --Moroder 10:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Noise is okay, but weak support. Maybe an image resize could be done --PantheraLeo1359531 15:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 20:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Commonists 20:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Golden_hand_at_the_louvre.jpg

  • Nomination golden hand at the louvre --Commonists 09:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I'm afraid there is something wrong with the phocus --Moroder 15:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment Excuse me, where? thanks --Commonists 22:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
      •  Comment Imo or as I see it, the whole object, but I'm glad to see opinions from other reviewers --Moroder 23:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Moroder. Not very sharp even at about the same size as my hand. -- Ikan Kekek 09:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF problem IMO --LexKurochkin 09:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 09:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Hotel_Gouin_-Tours_(50061228447).jpg

  • Nomination Hotel Gouin. (by Angelo Brathot)--IamMM 12:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose It needs a perspective improvement, top crop is small, blue air colour looks unnatural for me --Michielverbeek 08:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 07:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike1979 Russia 14:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment To CR, because IMO it's not a QI like this --Michielverbeek 07:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The roof is not sharp enough, strange spots of blur to the right from the main entrance, perspective needs correction. --LexKurochkin 17:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspectife and color should be corrected. --Fischer.H 09:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 09:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Turret_of_Crosby_United_Reformed_Church.jpg

  • Nomination Small turret on top of Crosby URC -- Rodhullandemu 18:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Same as the one below: too soft, probably due to NR. --A.Savin 19:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I give up. Some pics are too noisy, some suffer from noise reduction. If I could see these things, I might be able to fix them. Sharpened anyway.Rodhullandemu 19:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You're working with JPEG instead of RAW? Your image is posterized, details are missing. May be too much noise reduction. IMO you could start with the original image and make a new development. I can't believe details are missing at your RAW file. --XRay 06:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Reprocessed from RAW. Rodhullandemu 08:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  •  Support The turret is sharp, so I think it's a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 10:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --GRDN711 21:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --Fischer.H 09:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 09:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Spire_of_Crosby_United_Reformed_Church.jpg

  • Nomination 1890s spire on Crosby URC, with weathercock. -- Rodhullandemu 18:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too soft, probably due to NR. --A.Savin 19:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I give up. Some pics are too noisy, some suffer from noise reduction. If I could see these things, I might be able to fix them. Sharpened anyway.Rodhullandemu 19:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Rodhullandemu: This sharpening of unsharp stuff is surely not an improvement! If at all, the picture might be rescued by applying a completely different development of the raw file. --A.Savin 21:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
      •  Comment I deliberately applied as little process to the RAW file as possible to minimise errors. However, I won't live forever, so... whatever. Rodhullandemu 22:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
        •  Comment You've let the fanatical noise suppressors get the better of you. Image files with eight bits of color depth, as in the common JPG format, cannot do without a certain amount of noise, especially in the case of color areas that have few details but at the same time only slight color differences. This can often be seen very well in blue skies, but other predominantly monochrome image areas are also affected. The used color depth of only 256 levels per channel are then too little and the effect are these notorious color bands, which are often arranged concentrically. However, the sky usually has no stripes, and therefore these look immediately unnatural. In printing, where you have much less color gradations available from the start, this is done with a suitable screen (even with so-called screenless printers...), where the color dots are printed next to each other and on top of each other in such a way that the desired visual impression is created. With "chemical films" this is done automatically by the film grain. With digital media, a certain amount of color noise is allowed and even necessary, so that visually a harmonious color gradient results. If this noise aka dithering is completely removed digitally, the result is these ugly bands. If you don't want them, you need noise or 12 bit or better16 bit color depth. --Smial 11:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Reprocessed from RAW. Rodhullandemu 08:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  •  Question I hate to ask you, but could you smooth out the posterization lines in the sky? -- Ikan Kekek 10:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Rodhullandemu 16:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks. Good quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 09:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Fischer.H 09:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 07:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Argiope_spider_female_adult_on_her_web_dorsal_view_black_background_Don_Det_Laos.jpg

  • Nomination Multi-coloured Saint Andrew's cross spider (Argiope versicolor) female adult on her web, dorsal view on black background, seen in Don Det, Si Phan Don, Laos. A web decoration called stabilimentum, conspicuous silk structure included in the web, typical of the genus Argiope, can be seen at the upper left and bottom right corners of the picture. The specimen measures 9 mm (0.35 in) (body only) and 49 mm (1.9 in) with the legs. --Basile Morin 03:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The body is unsharp, please discuss --Llez 06:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Unsharp pixel-peeping at much larger than life size. I think it's good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 07:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'll add that I'm unsure about the pictures of the juvenile (or what Charles calls the sub-adult). -- Ikan Kekek 07:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Info It's not crispy sharp because it's not downsized. Please judge at 2 Mpx (minimum accepted), 6 Mpx, or 12 Mpx.
The specimen measures 9 mm (0.35 in).
It was windy, near the Mekong river, so the shot was extremely difficult. -- Basile Morin 06:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Fischer.H 09:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 09:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Argiope_spider_female_juvenile_on_her_web_ventral_view_wooden_background_Don_Det_Laos.jpg

  • Nomination Multi-coloured Saint Andrew's cross spider (Argiope versicolor) female juvenile on her web, ventral view on brown wooden background, seen in Don Det, Si Phan Don, Laos. A web decoration called stabilimentum, conspicuous silk structure included in the web, typical of the genus Argiope, can be seen at the bottom left corner of the picture. The specimen measures 4.5 mm (0.18 in) (body only) and 19 mm (0.75 in) with the legs. --Basile Morin 03:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The body is unsharp, please discuss --Llez 06:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Info It's not crispy sharp because it's not downsized. Please judge at 2 Mpx (minimum accepted), or 6 Mpx.
The specimen measures 4.5 mm (0.18 in). So, clearly the minimum distance of my macro lens was reached. Couldn't go closer.
It was windy, near the Mekong river, so the focus stacking was extremely difficult. A spider web is particularly vibrant.
See how small it is next to a scale ruler -- Basile Morin 07:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per argument above. -- Ikan Kekek 07:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Fischer.H 09:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 09:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Argiope_spider_female_juvenile_on_her_web_dorsal_view_wooden_background_Don_Det_Laos.jpg

  • Nomination Multi-coloured Saint Andrew's cross spider (Argiope versicolor) female juvenile on her web, dorsal view on brown wooden background, seen in Don Det, Si Phan Don, Laos. The specimen measures 4.5 mm (0.18 in) (body only) and 19 mm (0.75 in) with the legs. --Basile Morin 03:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The body is unsharp, please discuss --Llez 06:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Info It's not crispy sharp because it's not downsized. Please judge at 2 Mpx (minimum accepted), or 6 Mpx.
The specimen measures 4.5 mm (0.18 in). So, clearly the minimum distance of my macro lens was reached. Couldn't go closer.
It was windy, near the Mekong river, so the focus stacking was extremely difficult. A spider web is particularly vibrant.
See how small it is next to a scale ruler -- Basile Morin 07:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --LexKurochkin 09:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Alpina_B10,_Techno-Classica_2018,_Essen_(IMG_8967).jpg

  • Nomination Alpina B10 4.0 #001 at Techno Classica 2018, Essen --MB-one 19:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Мне нравится. --Mike1979 Russia 15:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment Translation: "I like it" --LexKurochkin 06:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sorry, but the rear side of the car looks rather strange, blurred and half-melted with the wall. Let's discuss. --LexKurochkin 07:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft, lots of chromatic aberration --A.Savin 21:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Too soft per A. Savin. Very difficult photographic situation with wall on the left and heads coming out of the roof. --GRDN711 22:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --LexKurochkin 06:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)