Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Line 934: Line 934:
* {{support}} Good enough in my opinion. -- [[User:Smial|Smial]] 17:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
* {{support}} Good enough in my opinion. -- [[User:Smial|Smial]] 17:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
* I've created a derivative work: [[File:P-vesyolkin-np-5430-2.jpg|100px]] Feel free to upload it under the old filename and make it again your photo for QI. IMHO exposure is visibly better in my version. Hopefully you see my point now?! --[[User:Tuxyso|Tuxyso]] ([[User talk:Tuxyso|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
* I've created a derivative work: [[File:P-vesyolkin-np-5430-2.jpg|100px]] Feel free to upload it under the old filename and make it again your photo for QI. IMHO exposure is visibly better in my version. Hopefully you see my point now?! --[[User:Tuxyso|Tuxyso]] ([[User talk:Tuxyso|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
:I agree with Tuxyso and prefer his version. But before upload it under the old filename you better change the file name towards sthg like ''Nikolai Petrovich Vesyolkin (18.11.2012)'' or similar. --[[User:W like wiki|W like wiki]] 17:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
}}
}}

Revision as of 17:43, 27 November 2012

Nominations

Due to changes in the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 23:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC). Thank you.

November 27, 2012

Again, please consider this quote from the guidelines: please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries. Adding more than a couple of images at once may be considered flooding, which is frowned upon. Thank you.

November 26, 2012

Again, please consider this quote from the guidelines: please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries. Adding more than a couple of images at once may be considered flooding, which is frowned upon. Thank you.

November 25, 2012

Again, please consider this quote from the guidelines: please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries. Adding more than a couple of images at once may be considered flooding, which is frowned upon. Thank you.

November 24, 2012

Again, please consider this quote from the guidelines: please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries. Adding more than a couple of images at once may be considered flooding, which is frowned upon. Thank you.

November 23, 2012

Again, please consider this quote from the guidelines: please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries. Adding more than a couple of images at once may be considered flooding, which is frowned upon. Thank you.

November 22, 2012

November 21, 2012

November 20, 2012

Again, please consider this quote from the guidelines: please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries. Adding more than a couple of images at once may be considered flooding, which is frowned upon. Thank you.

November 19, 2012

November 18, 2012

November 17, 2012

November 16, 2012

November 14, 2012

November 12, 2012

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".

Consensual Review

Use the same format as is already here:

  • Add a heading, e.g. “=== Photo title ===”
  • Add braces and a size to the image name, e.g. “[[File:Photo name.jpg|200px]]” (You have to do this, because it isn't in a gallery any more)
  • Change /Decline or /Accept to /Discuss.
  • Add a new line after the 2nd “|”
  • Put a new line before the final “}}”

File:Boy_from_Chaguaramal.jpg

  • Nomination Español: Boy from Chaguaramal, Estado Miranda, Venezuela --Wilfredor 16:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Nice photo and good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 16:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
     Oppose Unfortunate portrait lightning: Eye sockets are nearly completely shadowed (fixable via selective brightning?). IMHO unfortunate composition: View of boy is comletely straight, no reason to apply rule of thirds in horizontal direction. Remarkable noise (or artefacts from NR reduction), missing sharpness and thus missing details on skin and eyes. Personally I do not like truncated heads in portraiture (but not relevant for QI) --Tuxyso 18:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad lightning (a fill flash would have done the trick) and bad composition/crop. --Esquilo 14:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Père-Lachaise_-_Monogramme_01.jpg

  • Nomination monogram, Père Lachaise Cemetery --~Pyb 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose Lower part is unsharp (see notes) due to wide open aperture (f2.8) combined with focus point at the top. --Tuxyso 18:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
     Support. Please don't criticize too far. -- Lothar Spurzem 18:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Good photo for discussion. To me Sharpness (in contrary to minor CA's which are too often too far critized here) sharpness is essential to a photo. Blur is still visible at 40% view. Avoidable (parameters were 85mm, 1/125sec, f2.8 at ISO 100) - why not ISO 200? --Tuxyso 19:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Tuxyso on this one. A flat, stationary object should be sharp all over. --Esquilo 14:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Padula certosa ecce homo.JPG

  • Nomination Ecce Homo in the Certosa of San Lorenzo in Padula, Italy. -- Velvet 22:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry, bad lighting conditions --Moroder 23:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
     Comment. I don't understand the negative vote. -- Lothar Spurzem 19:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Me neither, details are good to see, beautiful shadows. Please be more specific. --W like wiki 17:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Burgruine_Salegg_in_Seis.jpg

  • Nomination Castel ruin Salegg in St. Oswald Kastelruth --Moroder 23:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Sorry, bad lighting conditions. --W like wiki 02:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    I disagree , be more specific --Moroder 08:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp at the edges. The 32MP resolution of the D800 makes it a very unforgiving camera. --Esquilo 15:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 Comment That does not mean that it's not QI imho--Moroder 18:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that I should trade in my D800 with a cheaper camera and a polarizing filter? ;-)--Moroder 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I am suggesting that if you can not get your photos sharp at 7267×4570 px you should scale them down. On other Nikons with lower resolutions (even expensier ones like the D4) these errors are sub-pixel. --Esquilo 06:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
There has been a lengthy discussion on WP about scaling down: you don't need to do it because you can upload just a smaller size picture. Besides full res you have all these options: "Size of this preview: 640 × 402 pixels. Other resolutions: 320 × 201 pixels , 800 × 503 pixels , 1,024 × 644 pixels , 1,280 × 805 pixels." --Moroder 06:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I just see that the left and right corners of this ruin are unsharp. Looks like spherical aberration. --Esquilo 15:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I just used ur own words from the image above so I was thinking u ll understand. But to be more specific: The foreground and the ruin are too similar and a bit grayish. And thats difficult to correct cause changes like this will reduce the contrast of the sky. Forthermore I agree with Esquilo. --W like wiki 17:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File:St Pancras railway station MMB 54 395001.jpg

  • Nomination Southeastern 395001 at St Pancras. Mattbuck 18:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion The train is blurred. - A.Savin 09:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
    Sharpened and CA removed. Mattbuck 18:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

 Comment The sharpening didn't do much good. It only made the picture noisier. Would support the original though. --Esquilo 15:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Nottinghamshire Pride 2011 MMB 30 Benjamin Bloom.jpg

  • Nomination Benjamin Bloom in concert. Mattbuck 18:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 23:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No QI for me. Photo has only snapshot character. Distracting background (letters). Areas around the guitarist are remarkable sharper than the head of him --Tuxyso 13:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? King of Hearts 01:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz 200 D, Bj. 1967 (2012-06-10 Sp ret).JPG

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz 200 D, Baujahr 1967 -- Lothar Spurzem 17:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose unsharp --Pudelek 17:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment. Please realize that the car is in motion. I ask for discussion. -- Lothar Spurzem 20:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support The car is not just moving, it is turning. Focus follows the grille but not the rear. Taking the photo a fraction of a second later would probably have been better, but I think the motion is well handled. --Esquilo 15:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The car just comes out of the corner, but it is not impossible at all to capture a Mercedes W110 200D in full sharpness. Capturing moving objects like cars fully sharp _is_ the tricky part that needs to be done, not an excuse. --Nichtvermittelbar 18:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC) 17:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? King of Hearts 01:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Paris_-_Dôme_des_Invalides_-_PA00088714_-_005.jpg

  • Nomination La coupole et le lanterneau du dôme des Invalides. --Thesupermat 15:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC))
  • Discussion I think it's tilted a bit cw.--V-wolf 20:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above (the tilt is even visible in preview). - A.Savin 10:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Tilt removed. --Smial 23:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 12:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support --Esquilo 15:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Reviewers may take a look on this pic in 100% view, there is significant posterization on the sky and the clouds. - A.Savin 13:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Neutral No tilt, but unfortunate file name. --W like wiki 17:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 13:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Elefante_en_Parque_Zoologico_Barquisimeto.jpg

  • Nomination Español: Elefante en Parque Zoologico Barquisimeto 2 --Wilfredor 15:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good enough. Does the elefant use artificial eyelashes or he is just too old? :) -- Alvesgaspar 17:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review >:) . He looked as if he were to die at any moment, I ask for your age and caregivers told me 78 years old, however, there is no reliable source to confirm. I can only take few pictures, the feeling of seeing animals trapped in a zoo is very unpleasant, I hate zoos --Wilfredor 17:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
    Needs proper id (especially for a zoo specimen). Biopics 08:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thank Biopics, I added the id from the zoo wikipedia article --Wilfredor 13:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Vincent C Rapide, Bj. 1952 (2009-08-07 Sp).JPG

  • Nomination Vincent C Rapide built in 1952 at Oldtimer-Grand-Prix of AvD in 2009 -- Lothar Spurzem 23:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC) --
  •  Oppose -- Extreme crop and distracting background, being sharp is not enough. Alvesgaspar 17:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment. I can only wonder. The „distracting“ background is typical for the old paddock of Nürburgring. And what part is not sharp enough? -- Lothar Spurzem 18:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I said "being sharp is not enough" ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 12:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
    O yes, my English is not good. But now I understand. Nevertheless I see no important lack in the photo. Best regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Really tight crop, but nevertheless QI to me --DKrieger 23:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? A.Savin 10:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Wassermühle am Kloster Wienhausen IMG 2111.jpg

  • Nomination Mill at Kloster Wienhausen (by Losch) -- Achim Raschka 06:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment Could be QI, if the chromatic aberration will be removed. --Iifar 07:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)  Info Suggested cut version, maybe FP --Wilfredor 15:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    CA were reduced - but don't see any reason for cropping -- Achim Raschka 17:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)  Comment CA is ok, but it looks oversharpened now. --Iifar 18:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    DXO Optics Pro used exact parameters for the combination of camera and objectiv to improve quality. And the original was a little bit unsharp. Now it's a little bit sharper but not oversharpened in my opinion.--Hic et nunc 08:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    *  Support -- Smial 16:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I would support a cropped version of the original. The new version is oversharpened and noisy. --Esquilo 12:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Gazania September 2010-1.jpg

  • Nomination Flower of a Gazanai rignes cultivar -- Alvesgaspar 00:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good Quality --Rjcastillo 03:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree; nothing in critical focus; even the stamens. --Jkadavoor 05:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not agreee with Jkadavoor. I like the vaninshing into unsharpness from the pistil and stamens to the petal. The centred position is bit boring, but OK for QI. --Tuxyso 09:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmmm; this is a flower profile, and not a single petal in focus. We have too add good bokeh also as an important criteria for QI. Good candidate for Flickr explore. Sharp at 800x600 though. Jkadavoor 17:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Technically, that is not true. This is a composite flower and the petals in the center are focused. :) -- Alvesgaspar 12:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Jkadavoor has a point; The petals are not sharp. Even though there is not much detail lost due to this unsharpness, it is still a quality weakness. --Esquilo 07:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? A.Savin 09:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Saint-Nicolaus-Unterberger.jpg

  • Nomination From the parish church of de:Kastelruth painter Franz Sebald Unterberger --Moroder 19:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Very nice in spite of the brightness at the frame in the bottom --Poco a poco 21:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
     Comment. Of course nice, but too bright below. It seems nearly like fog. -- Lothar Spurzem 09:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Flash reflections, especially in the bottom half. Always use polarizing a filter when shooting oil painting. --ℇsquilo 07:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? A.Savin 09:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

File:BMW 2002 Turbo (2008-06-28 Sp).JPG

  • Nomination BMW 2002 Turbo built from 1973 to 1974 -- Lothar Spurzem 22:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion A little dark but good quality. --Selbymay 08:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)  CommentDark and disturbing cars in the back --Moroder 01:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

File:P-vesyolkin-np-5430.jpg

  • Nomination Academician Nikolai Petrovich Vesyolkin --PereslavlFoto 12:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overexposed, correction is unproblematic. After correction Pro from me. --Tuxyso 12:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough in my opinion. -- Smial 17:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I've created a derivative work: File:P-vesyolkin-np-5430-2.jpg Feel free to upload it under the old filename and make it again your photo for QI. IMHO exposure is visibly better in my version. Hopefully you see my point now?! --Tuxyso (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Tuxyso and prefer his version. But before upload it under the old filename you better change the file name towards sthg like Nikolai Petrovich Vesyolkin (18.11.2012) or similar. --W like wiki 17:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)