Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 07 2019

Consensual review edit

File:Dülmen,_Börnste,_Mohn_am_Feldrand_--_2019_--_6389.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Poppies in the hamlet Börnste, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --GT1976 04:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Lacks sharpness IMO. --Ermell 06:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Short DoF, good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 09:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 05:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice use of low DOF. Very slight overexposure, reds are difficult for digital cameras ;-) --Smial 09:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Merfeld,_Bauerschaft_--_2019_--_6379.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Barley field near Merfeld, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --GT1976 04:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough. Sorry. --Ermell 06:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Focus is slightly in front of the nearest foreground, short DoF, good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 09:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Doesn't work as well as the poppies above, but still good quality. --Smial 09:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 13:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Basilica_di_Santa_Maria_delle_Grazie_portale_Brescia.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Portal of the Santa Maria delle Grazie church in Brescia. --Moroder 06:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 07:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment:Tut mir leid, aber ivh vermisse die Schärfe! --Manfred Kuzel 07:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Dann musst du es auf "Discuss" setzen. QI imho. --Berthold Werner 08:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 04:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Die vermisste Schärfe könnte ein Problem der Dateigröße sein. Ich kann das Bild zum Beispiel nicht öffnen. Wahrscheinlich kommt der Tag, dass eine handelsübliche PC-Festplatte nicht ausreicht, um ein einziges Foto zu speichern. -- Spurzem 13:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Einer der Gründe, weshalb ich schon vor längerer Zeit auf ein 64-Bit-Betrübsystem und (nach Möglichkeit) 64-Bit-Anwendungen umgestiegen bin. -- Smial 13:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Therefore I'd suggest to implement commons with a medium size file (e.i. 3000x 2000 pixels) to be downloaded --Moroder 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Service: 2000px resolution or use the zoomviewer from the file description page (flash or no flash version, hosted at wmflabs). --C.Suthorn 15:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Would be nice for fast viewing in reasonable resolution, but it would make an evaluation according to technical criteria impossible, because the scaling can be realized very differently. It could (over-)sharpen, for speed reasons it could choose a simple interpolation technique instead of, for example, the very time-consuming "lanczos", it could use a JPG compression level different from the original. --Smial 09:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not absolutely convinced with the perspective, and there are some tiny areas with overexposure, but overall the quality is good, even regarding the very high resolution. --Smial 09:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Chiesa_di_San_Faustino_in_Riposo_esterno_est_Brescia.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Facade and roof of the Chiesa di San Faustino in Riposo church in Brescia. --Moroder 08:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Oppose Sky is blown --Dktue 12:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    I disagree --Moroder 16:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      Support Über manche Kritik kann man sich hier nur wundern. -- Spurzem 18:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose The sky is fine but there's a lot of noise under the roofs. not signed --Moroder 12:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
      Support For me it's ok --Armenak Margarian 18:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good. --Smial 11:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst 16:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At the building on the right side in the upper area CAs --Fischer.H 17:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Are you serious or just throwing random judgments like someone else here?--Moroder 20:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Fischer.H is a little bit right, there are some artifacts. I guess they're remnants of Blooming on the building edges against the bright sky. But they are one to two pixels wide and so small and unobtrusive that they really don't bother. If you want to avoid this completely, you will have to render it with blender or povray or similar programs. --Smial 10:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question My rating was not coincidental, but was due to the existing CAs. Or should quality images with (albeit slight) CAs be found good in the future? --Fischer.H 17:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yess, they should. No photo is perfect otherwise it would not be a photo. Guidelines suggest that flaws should not be relevant but not absent. There are no photos with perfect perspective, DOF, definition, colours etc. And, quality of a photo is the content, the composition, the encyclopedic utility. We should not get lost with minimal scratches, seen only with magnifying lenses. I'd like to cite here user:poco(A), by far the most important contributor of Commons:"This user does not upload any new material to Commons until 2020 as a protest for the IMHO unacceptable treatment received by other users on this website. If I upload new images after that date those will be previously downsized to avoid pixel peeping " --Moroder 22:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 13:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Domaine_de_Maizerets_park,_quebec_city_06.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Domaine de Maizerets park --Wilfredor 18:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline Pretty woman and good quality, plus I think you have the freedom to use this kind of composition (in other words, I wouldn't disqualify this photo because of the crops). However, just like the other nominations, you need to put a little more effort into the filename and description. -- Ikan Kekek 03:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Chenspec 15:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Per Ikan; you need to improve the filename and description. --Tournasol7 21:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan & Tournasol7 (plus missing categories). --MB-one 11:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - It's really unfortunate, but I have to oppose because these simple actions have not been taken. Pity, it's a good photo. -- Ikan Kekek 17:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Milseburg 13:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)