Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 31 2019

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review[edit]

File:Mercedes-Benz,_Techno-Classica_2018,_Essen_(IMG_9919).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cockpit of a Mercedes-Benz 300 SL Roadster at Techno-Classica 2018, Essen --MB-one 05:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am disturbed by the innumerable small reflections of light, but above all the sign with the bright spot that the car should not be touched. Please discuss.-- Spurzem 21:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
    •  Comment Would consider cropping the reflection spot from the sign, but I'm afraid, that wouldn't satisfy you anyways.
  •  Oppose As an exception, the many small reflexes don't bother me so much here, they even make up a part of the picture design, which is acceptable. The reflex on the warning sign is of course deadly, and the cropping on the right is unfortunately much too tight. There is simply missing an essential part of the dashboard. --Smial 15:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bodruzal_-_Saint_Nicholas_Church.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bodružal - Saint Nicholas Church --Imehling 17:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  SupportGood Quality --Axel Tschentscher 19:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose tree trunk in foreground. Charlesjsharp 08:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose and it's leaning out.--Peulle 10:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Eine alte Holzkirche, was daran gerade ist und was nicht, das weiß niemand von uns. --Ralf Roletschek 15:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Die Bäume im Vordergrund geben dem Bild eine angenehme Tiefe. Sogar der Schatten wirkt hier gut. Die Perspektive scheint allerdings nicht der Wirklichkeit zu entsprechen. Trotzdem: Mir gefällt das Bild. -- Spurzem 21:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support The trees give it depth and a line of sight. Seven Pandas 00:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Der Baumstamm mag zwar störend wirken, manchmal sind aber derartige Dinge nicht zu vermeiden, wenn sich ein anderer Kamerastandort negativ auf die Darstellung des Objektes auswirken würde oder gar unmöglich wäre. Das sollte aber keine Auswirkungen auf die Bildqualität haben. --Manfred Kuzel 05:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 21:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Maison_Adolph_in_Colmar.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Maison Adolph at 16 place de la Cathédrale in Colmar, Haut-Rhin, France. --Tournasol7 16:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Please clean the spot, see note --Uoaei1 07:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not done within more than one week --Uoaei1 05:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC
  • Sorry for late correction, but it's done now. --Tournasol7 02:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality IMO --Llez 06:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support GQ. --Basotxerri 14:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 18:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Famberhorst 18:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)--

File:Zebra_with_Calf_Etosha.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Plains zebra with calf in the Etosha National Park --Domob 10:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice to see such a photo, but unfortunately too blurry (ISO320 is really too much). Also the bottom crop is not well done --Michielverbeek 15:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
     Comment @Michielverbeek: Should this be counted as “oppose”, or is it just a comment? --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think ISO320 is the problem (my camera considers ISO200 the default, so this isn't really that high), but I agree that the crop is unfortunate and the zebras are rather soft. IMHO it might still be borderline QI, but that's up to you. --Domob 10:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Neutral IMHO Domob himself put it completely right. The ISO setting is fine, problems are (a) the unfortunate bottom crop and (b) the rather soft zebras. It’s a pity, because the light is really lovely. Even after looking 3 times at the image I cannot decide, therefore I vote “neutral” here. What do others think? --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. It's a pity, the calf is out of DOF, and the bokeh of the lens is... erm... not nice. But I can not see issues with noise and general sharpness. Composition and lighting are great, and quality is good enogh to be printed to letter size or more. --Smial 10:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support I consider the quality as good enough. But it would have been a quite better image, if it was not taken with 1/200 s and f/4.5 but with 1/100 s and f/5.6. Greetings --Dirtsc 07:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Dirtsc! I fully agree; on reviewing lots of pictures later, I just liked this one very much due to light and composition, so I decided to give it a try. --Domob 17:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose ISO320 is fine, but the picture just isn't in focus. Charlesjsharp 17:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft, I think.--Peulle 06:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bottom crop, sorry --Moroder 17:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support gut genug für QI --Ralf Roletschek 18:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness/DoF should be better, crop at the bottom too. --XRay 04:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)