Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 21 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Houston_Fire_Station_Nr._3.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination This mid 1800's fire station is on the National Register of Historic Places -- Jim Evans 14:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 16:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Oversharpened, dark areas appear very noisy. Also probably oversaturated. --Smial 19:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial - it does look overprocessed.--Peulle 11:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 17:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Fort_Lauderdale-harbor.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Panorama of Fort Lauderdale harbor and skyline (by Kolossos) --Senator2029 13:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Ercé 13:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Not a successful composition: the cut mast, the blurred railing on the right, the double boat --Milseburg 14:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree that the composition is not ideal, but I think it's acceptable. Not sure what you mean about the double boat. -- Ikan Kekek 00:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I marked the double. See note. The Doblette can be recognized by the abruptly ending wake. --Milseburg 11:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It's really not possible that those are two different boats? -- Ikan Kekek 11:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely. The wake behind the right boat ends very unnaturally. It's a typical problem with moving objects while taking panos. --Milseburg 18:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It would be good to hear from Kolossos about this. In the meanwhile, I've removed my supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek 20:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
He's inactive since 2016. I'm afraid, we won't hear anything from him. --Milseburg 12:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
He was very active on June 14, 2020. -- Ikan Kekek 04:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
You're right. I just looked when he last edited his user page. So he should post here. --Milseburg 14:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Milseburg. --Smial 09:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Milseburg. --MB-one 21:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 17:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

File:DSC08100-Панорама-Edit_06.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Горный массив Караул-Оба: Морское лесничество, кв. 45, Новый Свет, Судак, КрымЯ, владелец авторских прав на это произведение, добровольно публикую его на условиях следующей лицензии:Это изображение загружено в ходе конкурса Вики любит Землю — 2019. --Александр Рудный 17:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Frank Schulenburg 18:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now - your photos are good, but please use a meaningful filename. -- Ikan Kekek 09:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now; it's slightly tilted.--Peulle 12:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan, plus messy categorization. --A.Savin 17:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes indeed on the categorization. -- Ikan Kekek 05:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 17:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Turdoides_altirostris_-_Iraq_Babbler_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Iraq Babbler (Turdoides altirostris) --Zcebeci 22:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Just over the 2 MPx level and as the motif is relatively small in the image, there is no detail, sorry, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 19:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Right but it is a very timorous and too small rare bird. So taking a clear large photo of it is quite difficult. Pls re-evaluate it according to this limitation factors. --Zcebeci 17:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Still useable for prints in A4 or letter size. Fortunately not overprocessed to simulate non-existent sharpness, as can be seen in many similar "quality" photos. --Smial 09:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Perhaps it should be a bit brightened. -- Spurzem 08:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 17:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Endeavour_Luxury_Condominiums_on_Clear_Lake.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination These Luxury Condominiums are on Clear Lake in the Houston-Galveston Bay Area --Jim Evans 12:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Border of the mask clearly visible on the house. Is that fixable? --Ermell 13:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done-- Jim Evans 11:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The verticals should be fixed as well. --Ermell 19:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please clarify. The verticals are vertical. If you mean the small spread on the outer walls from top to bottom, I shoot a lot of buildings and it's my experience that making the outside walls perfectly vertical often creates an illusion causing the building to look top heavy. If you insist I will change that but I'd rather not. Jim Evans 18:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I always have that problem too and it's not new here. Vertical lines are always demanded even if it is not always useful. I set the image to decline and then you can send it to CR to hear other opinions. --Ermell 20:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I guess for such a high building, a slight perspective is acceptable or even useful. So support, although the top is somewhat unsharp. --Palauenc05 14:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I withdraw my support, didn't pay attention to the missing categories. --Palauenc05 15:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose still has defects in sky to left of tower. Charlesjsharp 08:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please clarify. I do not see the defects you are referring to. Jim Evans 16:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No problem with the perspective, slightly converging verticals are ok and look more natural than 100% verticalization. But strong sharpening artifacts and strange patterns and structures on many parts of the building, especially on the outer edges and on the balconies in the upper part. Looks overprocessed. -- Smial 16:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial. Sorry, but just look at the top edge of the tower – partially pixelated, partially smeared, partially oversharpened, etc. Should be reworked from RAW file. --Aristeas 08:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • And I forgot: no categories at all. Sorry. Please add at least proper categories to make this file useful. --Aristeas 08:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --MB-one 09:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Yport_Plage_&_Falaises_d'Yport_07.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Cliffs & Beach of Yport, Yport, Department of Seine-Maritime, Region of Normandy (former Upper Normandy), France --Zairon 17:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Too high contrast, overprocessed. --Kallerna 13:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 14:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for me too. --PJDespa (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --MB-one 21:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --MB-one (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Lisbon_BW_2018-10-03_11-06-51.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Portugal, Lisbon, Castelo de São Jorge --Berthold Werner 16:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Overexposed/highlights adjusted too much (harsh light). --Kallerna 13:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good to go for QI. --Palauenc05 14:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too soft, imo.--Peulle 08:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Perhaps the building seems a bit too bright, but that's a question of taste. For me good quality -- Spurzem 12:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support o.k. for me.--Ermell 13:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Aristeas 08:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --MB-one 09:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)