Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 02 2021

Consensual review edit

File:Salix_caprea_female_TK_3.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination female catkins of Salix caprea, late March, Czechia --Nefronus 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Frank Schulenburg 18:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disagree, it's very soft. --A.Savin 00:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Christian Ferrer 18:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Commonists 21:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --LexKurochkin 05:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Corvus_cornix_in_Locarno.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Corvus cornix in Locarno --Commonists 18:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment This is probably Corvus cornix. --Nefronus 18:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment I have asked for a name change, thank you--Commonists 18:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support A good one, anyway! --Nefronus 18:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disagree. Composition is okay, but the quality is poor. It is soft, probably due to reckless noise reduction. Compare to Rhododendrites' bird shots, just for instance. --A.Savin 00:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 08:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin. Also oversharpened. --Smial 09:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --LexKurochkin 05:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

File:1زیگورات_چغا_زنبیل.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination By User:Mediumaxwiki --IamMM 13:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Interesting foto. --Mike1979 Russia 16:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, but quality is not good. --A.Savin 00:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin. Looks very oversharpened. -- Ikan Kekek 08:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would have no problem accepting the uncorrected verticals in such an image composition. You can do it this way. But I have to agree with the others here: CA, oversharpened and in my opinion too high color saturation, which leads to a lot of colorful artifacts in the Sky. --Smial 10:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --LexKurochkin 06:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Cathedral_of_Viana_do_Castelo_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Portal of the Cathedral of Viana do Castelo, Portugal. --Tournasol7 06:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Strong shadow distracting --Wilfredor 22:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment Sorry, but I disagree. It's not a candidat for FP. --Tournasol7 06:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Tournasol7, good quality. I don't know if I can vote because I nominate many Tournasol7's pictures, but I want more opinions --Sebring12Hrs 03:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment As this particular image is nominated by Tournasol7, formally you can, as far as I know the rules. --LexKurochkin 06:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. The shadow is not very pleasing, but still shows enough detail. I would have chosen a less strong perspective correction. The verticals look so far vertical, but in this composition they look a bit unnatural --Smial 09:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --LexKurochkin 06:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_position_Mud_Puddling_of_Euploea_core_(Cramer,_1780)_–_Common_Crow.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Close wing position Mud Puddling of Euploea core (Cramer, 1780) – Common Crow. By User:Bias Chakraborty --Bodhisattwa 14:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose flash in eye and a bit soft --Charlesjsharp 15:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Túllio F 18:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charlesjsharp --Nefronus 16:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --LexKurochkin 06:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Close_Wing_position_of_Burara_jaina_(Moore,1866)_–_Common_Orange_Awlet.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Close Wing position of Burara jaina (Moore,1866) – Common Orange Awlet. Subspecies:Burara jaina jaina (Moore, [1866]) – Darjeeling Common Orange Awle. By User:Atanu Bose Photography --Bodhisattwa 14:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Charlesjsharp 15:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I rarely disagree with Charles when a photo of an insect is good enough for him, but I think this one is too noisy. -- Ikan Kekek 17:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Nice picture, but with a lot of noise! --Túllio F 19:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too noisy and would benefit from a slightly greater DOF. Rodhullandemu 08:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --LexKurochkin 07:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Lille_maison_de_l'emploi_ancien_commissariat_central.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Employment center, located in the former central police station, Boulevard du Maréchal Vaillant, Lille, France --Velvet 17:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry: Disturbing cars in the foreground, no EXIF information. --F. Riedelio 10:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you for your review, that I would like to discuss. In cities designed for cars, many buildings are impossible to photograph without a car in the frame (a fortiori those in front of a parking lot, like this one). Also, I use Hugin for perspective correction, which I find very effective but erases the Exif data (at least on my mac). So I mention some Photo Informations in the description, which, so far, seemed acceptable for QI. --Velvet 17:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment There is a way to extract the EXIF data of a digital photo before editing it with Hugin or other tools, store it temporarily, and re-import it after the image editing is complete. I use Exiftool for this, but there are certainly somewhat more convenient methods. --Smial 10:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support The cars hide only a small, rather unimportant part of the building’s base; IMHO the photographer has selected a good time and perspective to show as much as possible of the building. --Aristeas 08:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Aristeas. Lighting, angle and sharpness of the building of interest are good; the cars hide a minimum part of it and are in the shadow. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Aristeas. --LexKurochkin 15:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support. I don't think we want to require photographers to start towing businesses. :-) -- Ikan Kekek 08:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Smial (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. --Milseburg 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --LexKurochkin 06:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Small_hill_with_snow_in_Vosges.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Small hill with snow in Vosges --Commonists 13:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Moroder 19:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   chromatic aberrations not fixed. --A.Savin 15:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done --Commonists 18:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
There are still CA's. Lightroom's automatic lens correction may help. --A.Savin 12:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done Thanks --Commonists 14:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Wrong, not done. --A.Savin 16:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I've done it, maybe you need to update your browser, put a note where you see it so I can check.--Commonists 16:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
If you see the image at 100%, you'll see green and purple CA's on stones and snow everywhere. I already said Lightroom (or any other RAW converter, there are free ones as well, just google) may help; so if you are not willing to take it serious, EOD from me. --A.Savin 16:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't see anything, we'll see what others think. And finally, you probably take it too seriously, you're the one who's always looking for me, don't worry, I'd gladly stay away from you.Regards --Commonists 17:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that you offer to stay away from my noms provided I'd stay away from yours? If so, that's a pretty childish attitude; but no surprising. --A.Savin 01:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
But do you ask and answer your own questions? This is childish and it doesn't surprise me. I only said that it's you who's looking for me, not me. Anyway, I won't respond to these personal attacks any more. Thank you.--Commonists 08:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Green and purple CA in the shaded areas of the snow, edges, etc. Poor composition, image is unlikely to be used in any Wiki project. --Tagooty 06:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Tagooty This is not FP, and it is not required to be used on wikis, otherwise QI would close down. Thank you.--Commonists 08:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see sections "Composition and lighting" and "Value" in the QIC Guidelines. IMO, this image falls short in 3 criteria, hence not QI to me. As this is discussion phase, others may give their opinions. --Tagooty 15:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Done, I can't find anything you say. Of course I know that others may have different opinions, that's the point. Greetings. --Commonists 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Guidelines criterion "Value" says "Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects" (emphasis added). To me this implies that an image must be likely to be used in Wiki projects. --Tagooty 15:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
And for me, no. That's just your interpretation.--Commonists 17:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Regarding the CA: Which software is able to remove most of the purple CA, but leaves the green part nearly unaltered? --Smial 11:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --LexKurochkin 06:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)