Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 16 2018

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Schokland._UNESCO-Werelderfgoed_actm_82.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Schokland. UNESCO World Heritage. Museum Schokland. "Horizon" by Hans Blank. Location: Museum Schokland.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 15:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment There are spots in the sky, please remove. --Basotxerri 16:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. The spots are flocks of birds. I can not possibly remove them all. The biggest birds will still go. But all the dots are too many. I can also retract the photo.--Agnes Monkelbaan 18:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think they look like birds in the distance and are acceptable. If this goes to CR, I will support. Do you know why the railing leans? -- Ikan Kekek 04:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Answer: The seawall is placed at an angle because a corner construction is much stronger. If the construction would be vertical. the pressure of the island would push out the wooden wall.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO spots aren't acceptable regardless if they are birds, insects or "real" spots. Why should we reject a dust spot and accept an insect if we can't tell the difference? However, move this to CR to get more opinions, if you wish. --Basotxerri 16:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now, thank you! --Basotxerri 15:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per my remarks above. And because birds were actually in the picture, whereas dust was on the lens. Whenever dust is actually in the picture (such as in a duststorm), it should not be cloned out. -- Ikan Kekek 22:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Basotxerri. The birds are not recognizable as birds. They look like lint. Such a mass of diffuse elements is disturbing in my eyes. It´s a bit protracted to remove them all but not very difficult. I had to do that too. There were mosquitoes. --Milseburg 11:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Again somewhat noisy in dark areas, could be enhanced. Some of the dots are clearly identifiable as birds, some not. In doubt AGF for the photographer, not her fault the birds are so small... --Smial 13:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done.Birds shot. Thank you. for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 14:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 21:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Well done. QI now. --Milseburg 11:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Billy69150 12:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Billy69150 12:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

File:F-HJPR_R44_Raven_II_take_off_from_Colmar_-_Houssen_Airport_(IATA=CMR,_ICAO=LFGA),_photo_5.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination R44 Raven II photographed at Colmar - Houssen Airport (IATA=CMR, ICAO=LFGA) in France (by Alfvanbeem). --Gzen92 10:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The propeller blade is cropped --Poco a poco 16:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support This crop is no reason to decline the picture. Because of the narrower cut, the cabin can be made larger. But regardless of that, I'm surprised that Gzen92 constantly presents strange images. -- Spurzem 18:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think a (slight) crop on the main subject is a valid reason to decline. We do have well framed action shots of this helicopter already promoted as QI. (and some worse ones too but that's besides the point.) --Trougnouf 22:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Perfectly acceptable to me. It's not like we don't know what the rest of the rotor looks like, and I rather like the composition. Also, Trougnouf, there is no limit on the number of QIs of a subject. -- Ikan Kekek 04:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop. I see the rotor as a definite part of the subject and as such this is a simple case of a missed shot.--Peulle 07:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support the crop is fine so as it is. --Ralf Roletschek 07:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco a poco y Peulle. --Basotxerri 17:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It looks as if it were eminently possible to get in the whole rotor here ... Daniel Case 19:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Valley_Of_Narzan_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Narzan Valley. At the confluence of the Khasaut river in the Malka river, Zolsky district, Kabardino-Balkaria -- NiaPol 18:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Granada 06:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There's a problem with an area by the tree trunk left of the cliffside, looks like heavy colour bleeding. Fixable?--Peulle 21:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks. Fixed the specified defect.-- NiaPol 18:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 09:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but overprocessed, lots of masking errors between rocks and sky, the stones on the banks are overexposed over a large area, somewhat too high color saturation. --Smial 10:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial, --Fischer.H 16:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial --Billy69150 11:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial --Daniel Case 17:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Billy (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)