Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 31 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Sous_la_falaise.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Gorges of Tarn river--Celeda 09:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. L'équilibre de l'image est très belle, bonne variété et détails des couleurs de la falaise, bon contraste avec les arbustes de devant.--Elryck 12:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed, far from QI --Poco a poco 18:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco. Looks quite strange at full size, IMO, and full size isn't so huge as to be irrelevant. -- Ikan Kekek 05:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose per Poco --Michielverbeek 05:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined XRay 06:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Tadeusz_Kościuszko_Portrait.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Portrait Painting of Tadeusz Kościuszko (1746-1817) with Sword & Banner --Scotch Mist 06:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Support Good quality. --Syed07 16:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    Please, use a more desciptive title. Otherwise OK. --C messier 17:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree with C messier. Once you appropriately change the title, I think it's good enough to support. -- Ikan Kekek 05:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done Have extended 'Title' to supplement description in image file which I hope covers request (although I have struggled to find information both on the painting itself and the artist) --Scotch Mist 09:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment To be clear, I meant the filename. I didn't even realize there was a line called "title". Filenames are supposed to be descriptive. -- Ikan Kekek 12:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done File name also now changed and manually edited here --Scotch Mist 15:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 14:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek 07:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Underground_city_in_Nushabad,_Kashan,_Iran3.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Underground city in Nushabad, Kashan, Iran --Amirpashaei 14:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --17jiangz1 19:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now; insufficient categorization, sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Provisional   Oppose per Robert. -- Ikan Kekek 06:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support categories fixed --Kritzolina 19:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support now as good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 01:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted XRay 06:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Vilnius_Sts_Peter_et_Paul_Church_19.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sculptures of St Florian and St Maurus in Sts Peter and Paul Church, Vilnius --Scotch Mist 05:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose badly cropped --Augustgeyler 09:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your opinion but the photo was deliberately taken to include the 'background story' in sculptures above the two saints featured - perhaps others can provide their opinions? --Scotch Mist 06:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Composition is perfectly OK, but could you eliminate or reduce the CA at full size? -- Ikan Kekek 06:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done @Ikan Kekek: Thank you for your comment - does the newly uploaded image achieve the CA reduction you envisaged? --Scotch Mist 10:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Yep. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 11:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 01:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted XRay 06:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

File:War_grave_for_World_war_II_on_the_cemetery_Halbturn,_Burgenland,_Austria-uppder_wide_PNr°0711.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The grave for the fallen russian soldiers of the second world war on the cemetery Halbturn, Burgenland, Austria --D-Kuru 22:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Strong distortion. Can you fix this? --PtrQs 00:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @PtrQs: What you mean with Strong distortion The image is taken with a 10-22mm wide angle lens so it naturally looks a bit long-ish. Can you clarify a bit more --D-Kuru 20:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I would propose making the verticals vertical (perspective correction) and maybe correcting the small CW tilt. --PtrQs 11:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If it shows that single grave, there is way to much sharpness in the background. --Augustgeyler 09:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello @Augustgeyler: , I hope you just missed the fact that I was still negotiating the terms/corrections for accepting this as QI, when you tackled this with your Decline. Otherwise this would count as quite rude in this community. For giving @D-Kuru: the possibility of improving his picture, I will move it to CR. --PtrQs 21:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm very sorry. Thats my fault. I did not notice that.--Augustgeyler 08:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  Comment The perspective must be corrected. -- Spurzem 12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined XRay 06:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

File:На_берегу_Валдайского_озера_в_пасмурный_день.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Category "Specially protected natural territories of Russia". Valdai Lake. This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2020 --Александр Байдуков 02:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Good but the horizon line is not straight. --Zcebeci 17:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I believe that the horizon is almost level, with left side approx 2 px higher than right, per 1280 px length. --Navinsingh133 09:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • We should discuss it. I am   Neutral about it. --Augustgeyler 09:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Nothing wrong with it.--Ermell 12:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 12:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted XRay 06:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

File:2020-07-25_Linde_an_der_Meinolfuskapelle,_Büren_(NRW).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Linde an der Meinolfuskapelle 33142 Büren (bei Gut Böddecken) --YvoBentele 16:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Taxa name in the file description is requested --Moroder 17:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC);
  •   Comment I did add "Tilia", but can not find out if its an T. platyphyllos or an T. cordata - sorry --YvoBentele 17:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality and good exposition --Elryck 18:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose technically ok, but the composition is not good especially the background --Augustgeyler 09:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me.--Ermell 13:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 19:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Nothing wrong with the background. --Palauenc05 08:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me --Jakubhal 19:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Palauenc05 08:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Puerta_de_Palmas,_Badajoz,_España,_2020-07-22,_DD_87.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Palmas Gate, Badajoz, Spain --Poco a poco 13:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Unnatural perspective and unsharp at the top. --Smial 13:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks OK to me. Certainly sharp enough, IMO, and nothing feels really strange about the image to me. Let's have a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 22:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Compare it with the other view of the same object I've promoted. We do not see here an adequate depiction of a circular building, but a grotesque distortion. --Smial 10:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, I compared both images and don't see any substantial distortion, let alone a "grotesque" one --Poco a poco 18:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I know that tons of architectural photos with similarly absurd wide-angle perspective have been waved through here on QIC and I also know that my aesthetic sense is lost here, where only the true vertical counts. But that won't prevent me from putting my finger in the wound when something like this catches my eye. I won't discuss this any further. Only one final word: The approach that architectural photographs are always best when the verticals are as vertical as an architect would draw them is fundamentally wrong if this suppresses and displaces all other aspects, such as length and/or surface proportions. --Smial 21:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
I've no problem to get a decline or having to discuss this topic here. It's your opinion and I respect it, but you have categorized it as a grotesque distortion while I see a little one and definitely acceptable for QI IMHO Poco a poco 12:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Some information that could probably illustrate my approach: A useful article that User:Raymond found and linked on Twitter today, a Dutch photographer whose work I have loved for years --Smial 09:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me.--Ermell 21:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose perspective. I think it should have been taken from a larger distance with a longer focal length to get rid of the distortion and to show more details of the object--Augustgeyler 08:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A perspective is bad. Sorry.--Elryck 11:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 14:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Geometry and sharpness are OK also for me. --Johannes Robalotoff 07:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --C messier 18:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)