Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 29 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Ventspils_10.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Golden Domes of Orthodox Church in Ventspils --Scotch Mist 07:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose I know, that underexposure is a well known artificial tool and not per se against QI. But in that case too much information about the building and its roof got lost. --Augustgeyler 09:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree - the photo is about the 'domes' not the building or the roof ... --Scotch Mist 15:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 19:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Baia_dos_Porcos,_Fernando_de_Noronha.jpg edit

 

  •   Neutral I checked it again. Christian Ferrer and Peulle convinced me. I am not sure if this is QI any more. --Augustgeyler 08:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. IMO it is overprocessed --Christian Ferrer 08:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks oversaturated.--Peulle 08:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too strong noise, overprocessed. Parts of the sky have a greenish tint, parts are burnt. Of course a good composition, and as far as the extreme image processing allows an evaluation, a very nice lighting. --Smial 11:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much not fixable issues. --XRay 13:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 14:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:38650 Jewish cemetery in Sataniv, Ukraine 2597.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Jewish cemetery in Sataniv. By User:Roman Starchenko --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Very well composed. But can you please upload a version with higher resulution? --Augustgeyler 12:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose overprocessed. --Kallerna 07:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Kallerna: it is no good behaviour to change this to Decline, while I made a comment and wait for an edit by the author. --Augustgeyler 10:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • IMO perfectly OK, if they think that the picture is not a QI anyway. --A.Savin 14:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Resolution, meaningless file name. Plus the sky is a bit strange. --A.Savin 14:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 16:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 19:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Institut_océanographique_de_Paris_20140430.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Institut océanographique de Paris (by DXR) --Sebring12Hrs 10:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Need Vertical fix --Wilfredor 14:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think it needs a lens correction, more than a perspective correction. --Augustgeyler 11:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Augustgeyler.--Peulle 08:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment A good photo for me. The distortion should be fixable; let's give the author some time to adjust it. --Lion-hearted85 10:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Paris 16: Hello, I know you are a specialist about perspective problems and Paris pictures. Please I'm very bad in using Shift N. Please, may you help us ? Sebring12Hrs (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Again, I think you need a lens correction, not a perspective one. --Augustgeyler 19:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 20:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Rote_Moschee_IMG_1371.jpg edit

 

  I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H 17:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 10:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:09011264_-_Berlin_-_Rotes_Rathaus_-1861.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Tower of 'Rotes Rathaus' in Berlin --Virtual-Pano 10:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Lion-hearted85 10:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too dark --Charlesjsharp 13:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment could you please specify which area is too dark? --Virtual-Pano 19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done exposure has been adjusted--Virtual-Pano 21:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough quality, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 07:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good image, for me not only good enaugh. Sometimes in the night it is dark. -- Spurzem 11:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support With Spurzem. Its a very clear, sharp and balanced image. --Augustgeyler 11:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 11:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_José,_Ponta_Delgada,_isla_de_San_Miguel,_Azores,_Portugal,_2020-07-30,_DD_43-45_HDR.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Church of St Joseph, Ponta Delgada, São Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal --Poco a poco 08:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 08:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment CA at the windows should be removed. --Ermell 21:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment As there was already a promotion vote before Ermell commented, I changed this to Discuss. --Augustgeyler 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I removed the IMHO really slight CA, a tough review in my eyes for such a big file and under challenging constraints Poco a poco 10:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good image. --Augustgeyler 16:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree. Very sharp image taken under challenging conditions and good composition. --Lion-hearted85 00:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell 07:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 07:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Hall_Of_the_pavilion_at_the_Granite_pier_(Pavilion_under_the_flag).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Hall Of the pavilion at the Granite pier (Pavilion under the flag): Elagin island, 4N, North-East of Elagin Palace, Petrogradsky district, Saint Petersburg --Александр Байдуков 02:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose overprocessed --Kallerna 07:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I have to disagree. Quality good enough for me, maybe an image resize could be useful --PantheraLeo1359531 11:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I see no lack. -- Spurzem 10:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Kallerna: Could you please describe what you meant with "overprocessed" in this case here? --Augustgeyler 10:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment highlights/shadows adjusted too much. No contrast. There is also too much floor. --Kallerna 08:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Thank you. In this case I can agree only partially. Yes it might be a bit processed to adjust shadows. But the low contrast you mentioned here must be caused by the real scenery, which has mostly white and light grey and surfaces. So I think it's OK. --Augustgeyler (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 20:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Route_langs_zandsculpturen_in_het_Kuinderbos_(Flevoland)._31-08-2020._(actm.)_14.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Walking route along sand sculptures in the Kuinderbos-Flevoland. (Viewpoint along the route). --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 04:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose wb off. --Kallerna 17:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think the white balance is OK, showing that special weather light. But the image seams to be slightly tilted ccw. --Augustgeyler 22:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. Would you like to indicate which side, left or right?--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment ccw (counter clockwise), that means it is leaning very slightly to the left. --Augustgeyler 10:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done. Vertical correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good for me -- Spurzem 10:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Spurzem. -- Ikan Kekek 07:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment there is also very similar photo already QI. Why promote both? --Kallerna 08:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality --PantheraLeo1359531 15:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Well improved. Good composition. I am just missing some sharpness. --Augustgeyler 08:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Johann Jaritz 04:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Walls_and_remains_of_towers_and_bastions_of_the_Roundabout_city.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Walls and remains of towers and bastions of the roundabout city of the XV-XVI centuries: Velikaya river embankment, Sverdlova street, Pskov, Pskov region --Александр Байдуков 02:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. Geotag would be useful --Podzemnik 02:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose strong halo effect. --Kallerna 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I think it is a bit over-processed. The wall in the foreground should have been made just a little less light for a less artificial look. --Augustgeyler 08:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)