Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 08 2019

Consensual review edit

File:Blauer_Erker.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Moderner Erker nahe der Oberbaumbrücke Berlin (Hotel nhow, Stralauer Allee 3) --Frank Schulenburg 15:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. --Bijay chaurasia 15:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree, so please discuss --Granada 15:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite adequate, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 21:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- It's fine for QI IMHO --Eatcha 04:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO OK. --XRay 07:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 11:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Audi_RS6_(P1070752).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Audi RS6 in Sofia --MB-one 10:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline The shadows of the tree ruin the shot. --Ruthven 15:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose Insufficient quality. --Piotr Bart 16:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Piotr Bart: Please elaborate. --MB-one 08:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
      Support - Good enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 05:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Burnt highlights, distracting background and surroundings, somewhat low DOF, random composition. --Smial 09:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Are we looking at the same photograph? Nothing in the image is clipped except for direct reflections of the sun, while the whole vehicle is within the DoF and centered within the frame.
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 14:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

File:David_Brown_Mini_Remastered_Genf_2019_1Y7A5036.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination David Brown Mini Remastered at Geneva Motor Show 2019--Alexander-93 17:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      Comment Is it possible to reduce the noise? --Cvmontuy 11:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
      Comment I edited the image, thanks.--Alexander-93 14:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion

  Support Cvmontuy 05:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Das Bild ist zu düster. Für mich ist es so kein Qualitätsbild. -- Spurzem 20:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  Support I would have been disappointed faced with that intrusive top of the display panels, but in this situation unavoidable if you don't carry around a step ladder, so you can't have everything. All salient stuff is in great focus. Good tone range: white to mid to black. Colour looks authentic even though Canons as cameras give the most juicy colours. Too dark? Difficult to say as pics are variable... they look dark when viewed in a light room and with white background, and vice versa. I've looked at it in both and I think it works fine. Also thumbnails always look darker, the Original file view filling the eye looks lighter and I think provides for better assessment. Like the 'sparkly' front of the car which gives the pic a nice lift. I think a this is obviously a QI. --Acabashi (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Angkor_Wat,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_107.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Angkor Wat, Cambodia --Poco a poco 15:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Chromatic aberrations, only the trees are in focus. --Ruthven 15:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is no CA here and not only the trees are in focus. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 20:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I understand Ruthven's reaction, but mine is that the temple is faithfully pictured in the dawn haze. -- Ikan Kekek 05:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've uploaded a new version with a better white balance Poco a poco 18:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - The new version is a QI, IMHO -- Eatcha 04:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    Eatcha: you'll need to know that I reverted it...Poco a poco 13:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not have any problem, but I like the last version -- Eatcha 14:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Poco a poco, I prefer the previous version, which looks much more sunrisy. I feel like you've taken away too much red/orange. -- Ikan Kekek 06:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    Ok, Ikan, no problem, I went back to the previous one --Poco a poco 19:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Basotxerri 08:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Sciurus_carolinensis.011_-_Kensington_Gardens.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Sciurus carolinensis (grey squirrel) in Kensington Gardens, London (UK). --Drow male 16:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality --Eatcha 19:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tail cut off. Sorry. --Ermell 19:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell.--Peulle 08:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Trotzdem sehr gut! Es geht ja nicht um den Schwanz. -- Spurzem 20:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good enough, IMO. The tail is unsharp, anyway, but enough of it is there and most of the body and head are sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 05:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Milseburg 14:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose tail Charlesjsharp 16:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose tail cut off & background blown out --Jacek79 18:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not fussed about the tail; if it was in it would probably detract from the great impact of this photo, which is the head and body. We don't always have to get every bit of the prime subject into a photo for it to work. So in fact I would probably crop in the left hand side with 5:4 AR, even slightly over the back of the tail, balancing its loss at the top thereby pulling the head farther into the frame, but that's just being persnickety. Great image with nice bokeh. --Acabashi 12:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 01:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Torre de Hércules.003 - A Coruña.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Torre de Hércules, A Coruña (Spain).--Drow male 18:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Eatcha 18:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Leaning to the left IMO   Done--Ermell 20:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Is this okay, File:Torres de Hércules.003 - A Coruña - test.jpg Eatcha 03:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment Yes--Ermell 14:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
      •   Comment I uploaded the fixed version, actually Drow male don't know how to edit pictures (He/she told it here), therefore I'm trying to help Eatcha 18:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
        •   Comment Thank you (is he ;) ). I'm sorry for my lack of habilities; this picture has more than 10 years, and I was asking me if it deserves the qualification of Quality image.--Drow male (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - Drow male, do you approve of Eatcha's edit or not? I'd like to know which version of this picture to judge. -- Ikan Kekek 09:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Yes, I aprove it.--Drow male 11:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)--Drow male (talk)
  •   Comment - OK, I looked at this closely, and I don't feel I can support this because the workmen on the lower left look so strange, but I'm not sure whether I should oppose. I will deliberate. -- Ikan Kekek 06:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. -- Ikan Kekek 05:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I erased the workman from the Matrix, but I also by mistake erased the guy on the right side, RIP ;) -- Eatcha 10:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  Support - There's still one problematic workman on the lower left, but I don't want him cloned out and he's de minimis for the purposes of the picture. Good overall quality, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 21:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Basotxerri 08:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

File:30_Hudson_Yards_(92900).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 30 Hudson Yards, Manhattan --Rhododendrites 13:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment If you correct the CAs, especially on the left, this can be a QI. --PtrQs 18:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    •   Support OK now. --PtrQs 23:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Eatcha 13:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CA still not fixed --Ermell 21:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell -- Websterdead 15:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @PtrQs, Ermell, and Websterdead: Sorry for the delay in fixing. Just uploaded a new version removing CA. Thanks. Rhododendrites 22:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 05:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell. CA are easy to fix these days.--Peulle 08:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • ?? @Peulle: Where are you seeing that? As I said above, I uploaded a new version removing a bunch of CA. Please let me know if there are others or if you just based this oppose on the thread rather than the image (or an old version). Rhododendrites 13:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Better now.--Peulle 14:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support One of the best we have of the plaza. None of the others have these dramatic cloud reflections. --Acabashi 14:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek 07:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 11:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)