Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 16 2019

Consensual review edit

File:2019-04-25_(140)_Taraxacum_sect._Ruderalia_(dandelion)_at_Haltgraben,_Frankenfels,_Austria.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia (dandelion) at Haltgraben, Frankenfels, Austria.--GT1976 04:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The main object is out of focus. Camera focused on the ground --George Chernilevsky 04:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per George.--Peulle 08:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per George and Peulle. Thank you, now i see it also! --GT1976 09:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 10:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Pfarrkirche_Röschitz_Glasfenster_Kapelle.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Glasfenster der Maria-Lourdes-Kapelle in der kath. Pfarrkirche hl. Nikolaus in Röschitz (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 03:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support - Good quality. In case anyone objects to this perspective, it's normal and fine, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 03:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Perspective is easy to fix and should be done in this case. --Ermell 06:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    Neue Version hochgeladen. --Manfred Kuzel 11:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 13:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support as the only objection has been addressed... good quality image. --Acabashi 18:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 06:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Royal_Palace_of_Athens,_2019_(01).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Royal Palace of Athens -- Bahnfrend 09:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support
    Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 09:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. It need the perspective correction. --Tournasol7 14:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's already been perspective corrected. The left hand edge of the building is now straight up and down. Any further correction would make the image look unnatural. -- Bahnfrend 01:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Left side is o.k. but the right side needs to be done.--Ermell 06:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The program I used has corrected the whole image. In any case, the right edge is hidden behind trees, which do not need further correcting - they are naturally not straight up and down. -- Bahnfrend 07:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell. Please take a look at the rightmost windows: they are leaning in. --Aristeas 08:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, of course they're leaning in. That's because the building is photographed in three-point perspective ("where the picture plane is not parallel to any of the scene's three axes"). If you were to alter the image to make all of the windows upright, you wouldn't be correcting the perspective, you'd be distorting it in the opposite direction. To correct the perspective of a three point perspective image, you make only one edge of the building upright, and that's what the software has done. What you are suggesting may be appropriate for a building photographed in two-point perspective (eg Griechisches Parlament.jpg), but the nominated image is photographed in three-point perspective, and therefore your suggestion is not appropriate. -- Bahnfrend 09:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 10:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The horizon line is below the building more or less at the head height of the visitors, which means that, as we are looking up at the building, perspective lines will also naturally converge above. Forcing verticals to a parallel in these circumstances always distorts/bloats unnaturally the upper (or lower) parts of structures. Forcing parallels to the edge line of a photo can be sometimes OK when the vertical edges of structures extend both above and below the horizon line, this to avoid a curved 4-point perspective, but where the vertical sides live entirely above or below the horizon line, it is perfectly fine to show that perspective, in fact it would be an unnatural distortion not to show it. As this was the only objection, I am supporting this image for being OK for all other QI criteria. --Acabashi 10:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC
  •   Oppose No big deal fixing vertical lines in this case --Moroder 08:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 10:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:20190502_View_of_Buda_Castle_from_Gellért_Hill_1636_2135_DxO.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View of Buda Castle from Gellért Hill in Budapest --Jakubhal 18:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Looks tilted in ccw direction and the right side is not sharp --Poco a poco 18:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
      Done, corrected --Jakubhal 19:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    You overcorrected it... --Poco a poco 17:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    Partly reverted. I have carefully checked the vertical lines and see no reason for any rotation correction on the original. The right side was indeed blurred and I have cropped it. --Jakubhal 18:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
      Support Looking good to me now Poco a poco 08:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Beautiful, but the castle does look to me like it slants down to the right. Does it in fact do that, or are my eyes playing tricks on me, or am I right? -- Ikan Kekek 10:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's an optical illusion. Taking the image into crop tool shows that the edges of the subject are vertical. Good quality image. --Acabashi 11:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • OK,   Support per Acabashi. -- Ikan Kekek 07:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The bell tower at the left looks leaning out a bit, so perspective correction needs some finetuning.--C messier 14:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 06:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Lexus_RX_450h_L,_GIMS_2019,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(GIMS0527).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lexus RX 450h L at Geneva International Motor Show 2019, Le Grand-Saconnex --MB-one 10:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline The woman just behind the car is spoiling the composition and please think about the verticals --Michielverbeek 19:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    I can accept the lady behind the car, she's incidental, but the verticals could be corrected. --Rodhullandemu 00:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The reflexes are extremely disturbing and especially on the right the photo is overexposed, including the woman. -- Spurzem 21:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment straightened the image. --MB-one 16:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 06:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Charleroi_-_exposition_de_1911-_pavillon_électrique_-_03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Charleroi (Belgium) - Electric pavilion built in 1911 for the Universal Exhibition of Charleroi. --Jmh2o 06:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality, but composition is not impressive. IMO too much air in the sky and I would have put the main object in the left top corner --Michielverbeek 07:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment new crow. Is it better so. I can revert. --Jmh2o 14:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't know, I'm pretty open minded when it comes to composition at QI, but this is a bit below my line. Please discuss --Podzemnik 02:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The composition is acceptable, IMO, but Jmh2o, the pole on the right is obviously tilted. Is it tilted in real life? -- Ikan Kekek 18:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This crop doesn't work for me.--Peulle 07:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The difficulty in shooting is that you have to move away enough to have a good view of the roof. And then, the road signs and the lighting pole (actually inclined), very close to the building, become visible. I admit that the framing is not good. See the different published version of the image. (Google translation). --Jmh2o 10:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support since the pole is actually inclined. -- Ikan Kekek 02:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 06:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:GFG_Style_Sybilla,_GIMS_2019,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(GIMS1214).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination GFG Style Sybilla at Geneva International Motor Show 2019, Le Grand-Saconnex --MB-one 11:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality, I assume it's cropped --Eatcha 18:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info I had to crop it quite tightly because there were many distracting things/people around --MB-one 20:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nevertheless th crop is too tight, the background disturbing and the upper rear of the car seems overexposed. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - This shot arguably doesn't focus enough on its main subject, but it works to me as documentation of the craziness of a convention. -- Ikan Kekek 23:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Spurzem. --Smial 07:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crop is too tight --Michielverbeek 07:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Michielverbeek --Billy69150 13:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 06:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Puente_de_madera,_Tierpark_Hellabrunn,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2012-06-17,_DD_02.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Wooden bridge, Tierpark Hellabrunn, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 17:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough at the bottom due to DOF. --Rodhullandemu 19:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Tough review, looks good to me for QI --Poco a poco 09:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've had another look at it. The cables at the front, and the top of the structure, are blurred at full resolution, but I'll happily throw it open for others to consider. Rodhullandemu 18:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Somewhat low DOF, but "good enough". --Smial 13:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support -- Piotr Bart 17:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 06:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)