Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 28 2018

Consensual review edit

File:Jardins_des_Champs-Élysées_Paris.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The Jardins des Champs-Élysées park in Paris, France. --Moroder 19:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Can you add some catogories about this tree? --Tournasol7 00:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)  Done --Moroder 11:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. --Trougnouf 20:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Right part of the image leans inward. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
    •   Done Thanks --Moroder 12:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 20:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 12:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Gautama_Buddhas_2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Gautama Buddha --Fitindia 17:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Cayambe 07:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Can you provide more information about the file please and give it more specific name and more categories? What exactly are we seeing here? --Podzemnik 11:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have added to the description, please do have a look. Thank you. FitIndia Talk 12:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good enough quality, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 21:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Podzemnik. You should provide more background on where this image was taken and what the context is. Description is part of QI criteria. --Johannes Robalotoff 11:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 11:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Basotxerri 16:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Lion's_Head_with_proteus_flowers_and_pine_trees,_seen_from_lower_slopes_of_Table_Mountain.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Wider view of Lion's Head from Table Mountain --Daniel Case 06:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
    Still dusty from left to right, stopped counting --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 06:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  Fixed Went in as deep as I could. Daniel Case 21:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  •   Comment - Kind of blotchy. You're sure you couldn't do more with this and the other file? -- Ikan Kekek 06:17, 20 December 2018
  •   Oppose - Are U kidding? Greasy stains visible at 100 percent view. IMO image have many issues. Only for X-Mas, overhand a DNG-file of it --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 07:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The plants on the left are strange ... the background transition there looks wonky.--Peulle 17:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sick of nitpicky reviewers not able to get to the essence of an image --Moroder 21:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Moroder: Finde ich ja schon total schnuckig. Ein Kommentar von mir von heute, zu einem image vom dir, ist verschwunden, ich werde aber trotz Deinem Status als Commoner und den Titeln, die nur hier nachvollziehbar sind, den Eindruck nicht los, es ist ein Trotz-Pro. Es bräuchte bei commons tatsächlich so etwas wie einen "Thumbs down" zum thumbs up (oder eine Markierung für den dümmsten Kommentar der Woche), sonst wird das zur photographischen Inzucht. Gerade die letzen Wochen wurde es mir wieder zuviel. Mein Problem ist, das Daniel Case auch schon dutzende so "foolish comments" abgegeben hat, daher mag meine Kritik unsachlich erscheinen, aber das pic ist nicht nur rein ein Schnappschuss, es hat auch sonst so viele Fehler, das es mir den Schalter rausgehauen hat. Es lässt sich nämlich relativ einfach korrigieren (dust is easier then skin), damit ist es mehr lazy oder faul, oder schlampig (trifft es imo am besten). Bei commons sind halt kaum 3 Prozent Semiprofis oder wirkliche Fotografen. Ist kein qualitativer Anspruch, aber hier ist jeder Amateur auf einmal ein Ansel Adams (wahlweise austauschbar), dabei sind so viele Themen wirklich grotten-(übel)-schlecht, zB Food, peoble, portraits, akt, sogar Felgen und Autoreifen....--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 23:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think this page was originally created to increase awareness on quality aspects among amateurs, as well as to spread photographic knowledge among them. Assumably most people working on the project are just enthusiasts. Everyone should be willing to learn from the community's comments. We should not fight on a QI promotion. Even members who won the first place in "Wiki loves monuments" got some of their other images criticized or even rejected here. As for the original version of this image it looks to me as if Daniel should let his sensor be cleaned at a professional shop. Apart from that, there are sharpening artifacts around the mountain and the tree. The sky has an unnatural-looking color in the corrected version. It should be no problem to clone out the annoying spots in the sky. But for the rest you would have to re-process the image from a raw file, if you have one. --Johannes Robalotoff 10:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 12:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)