Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 11 2019

Consensual review edit

File:ES-ACB.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Nordica aircraft at Warsaw Frederic Chopin Airport. By User:XDominik113x --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Looks blurred, not really sharp. --Gyrostat 09:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support I think it is sharp enough. Please let's discuss. -- Spurzem 15:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Spurzem. -- Ikan Kekek 10:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per Spurzem. --Smial 12:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  Comment I must admit that I don't understand. The focus is soft and no detail is sharp on the fuselage of the aircraft. Imho, this image falls short of the guidelines for QI. Gyrostat 13:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Women_in_Architecture_Guggenheim_Logo-es.svg edit

 

  • Nomination Logo para la Editatón en la Mujeres en la Arquitectura --Ezarate 00:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose I don't see why this simple text should get QI status --Podzemnik 01:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see why it should not. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 07:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree Podzemnik. undefined 22:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too simple. --Milseburg (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't think QI is for this sort of thing, but in any case the kerning's not quite right for a QI. Rodhullandemu 11:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 01:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Bangladesh_international_school_dammam_school_image.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination previously the reason was that the image wasn't from an appropriate angle(it is ok angle) and blurred plates isn't manipulating
  • Decline The image if the school -BISD --MRC2RULES 12:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It was nominated before. No changes. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 13:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose and manipulated number plates --Ralf Roletschek 14:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose That's the second nomination of this image between a few days. But it is not improved. It still looks like the buildings are tilting backwards. -- Spurzem 08:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed, massive compression artifacts, way too small for an easy to take image. --Smial 10:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle 08:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 01:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz_SSKL,_Bj._1931_(2008-06-28)_ret.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz SSKL from 1931 in the historic paddock of Nürburgring -- Spurzem 13:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 15:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose Color balance should be corrected. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 19:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Andrew J.Kurbiko: What's happening? Can you also express yourself a bit more clearly? -- Spurzem 00:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
It is faded and low contrast. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 13:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Weißabgleich ist ok. --Ralf Roletschek 10:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice car, but there are lots of masking errors between the main motif and the digitally blurred background, visible even without pixel peeping. In addition, remnants of CA can be seen at the rear. Also, per Andrew: Wheels look faded, have low local contrast. This seems unbalanced compared to other dark areas. --Smial 14:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Smial: Vielleicht sollte ich mich wirklich darauf beschränken, in Zukunft nur noch mitzujubeln, wenn hier wieder einmal wie so oft über- oder unterbelichteter und total verzerrter Murks hochgejubelt wird, Autos mit Plakaten in den Windschutzscheiben und evtl. Personen mit Picknickkörben und abgeschnittenen Köpfen dahinter. Fürs Erste ziehe ich schon mal diesen Vorschlag zurück. Vielen Dank für Deine Bewertung. -- Spurzem 15:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Lothar, ich glaube, meine Bewertung hier in diesem Fall ist nicht ungerecht. Bei den reihenweise durchgewunkenen Ausstellungsfotos mit unsäglicher Beleuchtung und Gestaltung bin ich völlig bei dir, aber ich habe aufgegeben, dagegen anzustänkern, einfach schon, weil es mir als Stalking ausgelegt werden könnte. Eventuell versuchst du es noch einmal mit weicherem (und genauerem) Übergang bei der Maske? Das Auto selbst ist ja, wie bei dir üblich, typgerecht und vorteilhaft abgebildet. --Smial 17:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Smial: Nachdem ich mir das vorgestellte Bild noch mal ganz groß anschaute, muss ich zugeben: Du hast recht. Ich habe es deshalb noch einmal bearbeitet; mal sehen, ob es jetzt gefällt. Gleichzeitig mache ich den Rückzug vom Rückzug und sehe der Kritik ins Auge. Gruß -- Spurzem 22:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me, IMO the blurred background is an acceptable technique, as long as the main motif is in focus. --Palauenc05 07:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    I disagree. Blurred background here is unnecessary, it reduces the quality of the image. So   Oppose for now. Masum Reza📞 10:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: I know we have many quality images of cars with clearly identifiable people in the background or next to them, some at the picnic, others with their heads cut off, sometimes a dumpster is in sharp focus, and so on. Of course, the car is also recognizable. Whether such pictures are really the better, is an open question. It's a matter of taste. Nevertheless, thank you for your expert judgment. -- Spurzem 11:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. I am basically not happy with strong image editing, but here the new revision is "good enough". --Smial 10:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good work. Of course QI forr me. --Steindy 20:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
      I withdraw my support after I had to take note, I have no idea about photography. --Steindy 18:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Steindy: Ich verstehe hier inzwischen fast nicht mehr. Habe ich inzwischen irgendetwas falsch gemacht oder Dich beleidigt? -- Spurzem 08:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support No masterpiece of masking technique but just o.k.--Ermell 07:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Waterfalls_near_Ayatana_resort,_Coorg_1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Waterfalls near Ayatana resort, Coorg -- IM3847 12:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Nice image --PantheraLeo1359531 14:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Not good enough for me. --Tournasol7 15:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Seems OK for a 6-second exposure of a waterfall. Parts of the photo are very dark, but that just highlights the waterfall more. -- Ikan Kekek 07:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice image, but I can't see one really sharp area. --Carschten 11:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Carschten.--Ermell 07:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 01:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_6.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 06:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my support after I had to take note, I have no idea about photography. --Steindy 18:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Leaning out. --Ermell 23:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Perspective corr. --Manfred Kuzel 08:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks good to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good now. --Aristeas 06:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support problem solved.--Ermell 07:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)