Open main menu

Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 13 2018

Contents

Consensual reviewEdit

File:_Valley_Of_Narzan_5.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Narzan Valley. At the confluence of the Khasaut river in the Malka river, Zolsky district, Kabardino-Balkaria -- NiaPol 18:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Granada 06:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Heavy CA in the trees.--Peulle 21:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done Thanks. Removed chromatic aberrations on the left side of the trees.-- NiaPol 04:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support OK now. --Basotxerri 05:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 09:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This one ok. --Smial 10:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Billy69150 11:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Windmuehle_Charlotte_Geltinger_Birk_Sonnenuntergang_msu_2018-0092.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Sonnenuntergang in der Geltinger Birk.Dieses Bild zeigt das Schutzgebiet in der World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) mit der Nummer 70923 --Matthias Süßen 13:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Bijay chaurasia 16:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Atmospheric! But the color noise in the lower part ist too strong for me. Sorry for carping. --Milseburg 18:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful and quality good enough -- Spurzem 09:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Milseburg. A pity because it's a nice image. --Basotxerri 17:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Noise results from rather high color saturation. Could be reduced without blurring. --Smial 14:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Milseburg. Daniel Case 17:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose very pretty picture but lots of color noise. --Trougnouf 18:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others because of very strong color noise. -- Ikan Kekek 20:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 14:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, especially the bottom right part. -- DerFussi 09:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Smial: Thanks for the tip I just saw. I'd be happy to try that out. Unfortunately, I won't make it in the next few days. Therefore, this vote can be ended here. I'll see what a different version looks like. Matthias Süßen 08:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose →   Declined   --Billy69150 11:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Frontage_on_the_left_bank_of_the_Lot_river_in_Espalion_01.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination Frontage on the left bank of the Lot river in Espalion, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 07:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose I think the WB should be corrected. --Ermell 08:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   Not done in a week --Daniel Case 20:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice reflection. I think it reaches QI level. --Milseburg 18:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel.--Peulle 06:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support. Which WB issue? Looks reasonable. --Smial 14:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I don't understand what the problem is. Is the point that perhaps the photo is too dark? I don't know how much cloud cover there was in the sky. Good photo, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 20:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner 08:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Billy69150 10:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roletschek 14:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Do not see any WB as well. -- DerFussi 09:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)~
  •   Support seems to be fine --Joergens.mi 07:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support QI 4 me. --Palauenc05 17:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Total: 9 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Billy69150 11:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Roche_Abbey.jpgEdit

 

  • Nomination: The ruins of Roche Abbey, England --Mdbeckwith 13:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Review Very beautiful, but not sharp enough IMO. Maybe you can reduce a bit the size? Tournasol7 17:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    Reducing resolution is frowned upon (and doesn't bring any benefit), I think it's better that you review images at a fixed resolution (eg 200% of monitor) so that high-MP cameras are not penalised by pixel peeping. Sharp enough IMO but I'm not sure that's a naturally occurring sky color. --Trougnouf 13:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Clearly sharp enough for a 40 mp extreme-wide angle but I'm sure about the wb. --ArildV 19:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough for quality pics imho. The wb is quite warm but still ok. Nice composition. --Alexander Leisser 10:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMO the vignetting is too strong. --Basotxerri 13:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my comment / not done --Trougnouf 15:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm not really sure I understand the comment about vignetting, but Mdbeckwith, please address the question of whether the white balance could be off. Did the sky and light really look like this? Otherwise, fine sharpness and good composition. -- Ikan Kekek 21:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The corners are darkened, this doesn't look natural anymore. I mean I sometimes apply gradient filters to do something similar to guide the viewer's eye to the image centre but IMO it should always still look natural. --Basotxerri 18:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Bad WB. But: many old uploads by User:Michielverbeek also have rather reddish/brownish WB, and were supported here, though. I don't know, what to do. --Smial 09:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggest you follow your eyes and judgment. -- Ikan Kekek 02:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support It's ok to me. -- DerFussi 09:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I will   Oppose because the sky looks odd to me and the photographer has not commented. Mdbeckwith, if you state that the sky actually did look like that, I would lift my opposing vote. -- Ikan Kekek 09:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Finally   Oppose because of the dubious white balance. --Smial 16:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The point may be moot since the result is the same (no promotion), but I'm going to insist we follow protocol here and so I have stricken your vote. This discussion has carried on for ten days, a full two days more than the eight normally given to the CR process. If you wanted to vote, you had plenty of time to do it while the process was running. Now the voting is closed.--Peulle 20:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 11:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)