Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 21 2019

Consensual review edit

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_68.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality --Llez 04:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Pattern in the sky. Sorry. --Ermell 06:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I also think that with the pattern in the sky it shouldn't be promoted. --Tupungato 07:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Oberstinkenbrunn_Kellergasse_Kirchberg.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Kellergasse „Kirchberg" in Oberstinkenbrunn (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    The verticals should be corrected IMO. --Ermell 06:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Better so? --Manfred Kuzel 15:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    Rechts ist das o.k. aber das Haus Nr.103 noch nicht. --Ermell 06:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: Wenn ich 103 ausrichte, dann ist der Pfeiler lins bei der Gartentür nicht mehr vertikal. Und da es sich bei 103 im Kern um ein sehr altes Gebäude handelt, das wohl von einem Weinbauern ohne Wasserwaage und Lot errichtet und erst kürzlich modernistiert wurde, kann wohl angenommen werden, daß es - wie viele andere Presshäuser in den Kellergassen - nicht ganz senkrecht steht. Der neuzeitliche Türpfeiler aber sehr wohl. --Manfred Kuzel 05:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The house 103 is leaning backwards, also the pillars of the new garden gate. The patterns can also be seen under the roof. --Ermell 21:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition. The house on the left is cut off, sorry.--Peulle 07:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment again in English: If I align 103, then the pillar lins at the garden door is no longer vertical. And since 103 is basically a very old building, probably built by a winegrower without spirit level and solder and recently modernized, it can probably be assumed that it - like many other press houses in the cellar lanes - is not quite vertical stands. The modern door but very well. --Manfred Kuzel 13:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_87.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich).. --Manfred Kuzel 04:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Please check the verticals. --Ermell 06:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Thank you for review, new version uploaded. --Manfred Kuzel 04:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sensor pattern visible in upper window and sky. -- Ikan Kekek 08:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle 10:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --A.Savin 13:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The camera was from 24.9. until 18.10.2019 at the Nikon-Service. Diagnosis (cost € 64.62): Camera and sensor in perfect condition. --Manfred Kuzel 13:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Azadi_Tower_1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Azadi Tower By User:Newyork3 --Hanooz 09:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Syed07 12:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Some of the sky looks too dark to me. -- Ikan Kekek 13:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Strange projection, unbelievable sky. -- Ikan Kekek 03:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Regular fisheye shot. I don't like fisheye very much, but here it's used meaningful, with good composition. Somewhat noisy, but imho good enough. -- Smial 09:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too heavily distorted. --A.Savin 13:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support As Smial --Dirtsc 08:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Smial; OK for a 2011 shot.--Peulle 12:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    Just curious: old shots are to be treated different? --A.Savin 21:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't believe so. It's being nominated now, not in 2011. -- Ikan Kekek 06:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @A.Savin: & @Ikan Kekek: : Actually, images needs to be evaluated by what you think should be 2011 standards. I quote from the Guidelines: "The purpose of quality image status is to recognize that at the moment of creation, a Commons user skillfully achieved a desirable level of quality"... Hence my reasoning. --Peulle 07:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - So those of you who are supporting this photo believe the colors in the sky are real? That dark a blue? -- Ikan Kekek 06:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd need something substantial saying otherwise.--Peulle 07:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Though I'm more used to skies of more northerly latitudes, it does not look unnatural or impossible. It's an extremely wide angle view and you can see a wide range of the sky. The sun is obviously behind the building and seemingly and supported by the time stamp near the horizon. Then the zenith would be far away from the sun and therefore show a darker blue then parts of the sky near the sun or nearer to the horizon. If this was a day with clear air conditions, the sky will look impressive like this. I think the post-processing has enhanced the effect, but the image does not need to be heavily manipulated to look like this. Greetings --Dirtsc 07:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, if that's the case, I will change my vote to support if the file description includes the fact that this is a fisheye projection, with a link to someplace that explains that. We can't assume any viewer will know what to make of this photo. -- Ikan Kekek 04:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I changed the description. Hanooz 21:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per remarks above, though perhaps the dynamic range should be dialed back somewhat. -- Ikan Kekek 02:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support One of the most interesting fisheyes I've seen so far. --Axel Tschentscher 06:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 14:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Albert_Bridge,_London_A.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Albert BridgeWikidata has entry Q1972207 with data related to this item.This is a photo of listed building numberI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2019. By User:MrsEllacott --Jwslubbock 13:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion   SupportGood quality --Michielverbeek 13:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    *  Oppose Perspective not corrected. --Basotxerri 15:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - This perspective, and the overall photograph, is OK to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 03:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Could be crisper, but otherwise OK. --A.Savin 13:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not every perspective needs to be corrected. --Axel Tschentscher 06:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Diese Unsitte mit dem Verzerren der Bilder gehört bestraft und nicht umgekehrt. --Ralf Roletschek 11:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 14:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)