Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 30 2017

Consensual review

edit

File:Teil des Himmelstempels.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination The Imperial Vault of Heaven at the Temple of Heaven in Bejing. --A,Ocram 22:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality --Shansov.net 22:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Image needs perspective correction (verticals are not straight) --Halavar 23:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I see no lack. -- Spurzem 07:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Halavar. Furthermore, there are at least two CAs (on the right side), please remove. --Basotxerri 14:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems fine to me. Charlesjsharp 21:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --W.carter 13:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Pelícano_pardo_de_las_Galápagos_(Pelecanus_occidentalis_urinator),_Cerro_Brujo,_isla_de_San_Cristóbal,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_159.JPG

edit

 

  • Nomination Galapagos brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Cerro Brujo, San Cristobal Island, Galapagos Island, Ecuador --Poco a poco 07:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sharpness and lighting. Charlesjsharp 10:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is a very large file. It's sharp enough, IMO, and the lighting seems realistic; what's the problem with the lighting? -- Ikan Kekek 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's always a problem. -- Ikan Kekek 22:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not FP-standard for sure, but lighting is good enough for QI. -- King of Hearts 20:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --XRay 19:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

File:New_York_Yellow_cab_Ford_Crown_Victoria_1020716.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Taxi on Eigth Avenue in New York driving past --Ermell 06:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Image is not sharp (yes, I know that camera was probably moved intentionally). --Shansov.net 07:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
      Comment These kind of photos are never sharp! --Ermell 06:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think too much of the car is blurred, sorry.--Peulle 06:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality, IMO. If the point of a photo is to be blurred, is "blurred" a reasonable basis for considering the photo not to be of good quality? -- Ikan Kekek 08:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I see this as a shot where the background is supposed to be blurred but the subject (the car) is supposed to be reasonably sharp.--Peulle 10:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Das Bild „hat was“, es zeigt Geschwindigkeit und ist schön, zum Beispiel die Lichtspur hinter der Heckleuchte. Ob das Ergebnis allerdings so beabsichtigt war oder Zufall ist, kann ich nicht beurteilen, ist aber auch egal. -- Spurzem 10:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Zufall ist immer dabei. Ich hab aber ca 20 Aufnahmen gemacht um ein passendes Bild zu bekommen. Dank der relativ hohe Fahrzeugfolge war der Zeitaufwand nicht so gewaltig. Danke für die Unterstützung.--Ermell 12:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. --Palauenc05 19:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough for a panning shot. -- King of Hearts 20:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --XRay 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Piz Forbesch Panorama, extrem Hochauflösend und beschriftet.png

edit

 

  • Nomination High-resolution panorama from Piz Forbesch (Switzerland) with labels --Capricorn4049 19:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Comment Interesting and certainly lots of work went into this. The photo quality itself is quite high, but I would suggest some changes to increase the file's usability: 1) store it as a high-quality .JPG or .PNG instead of a .TIFF to decrease the file size while retaining the quality, and 2) don't use those drawn-on lines and names to point to the different mountain tops, instead use the Commons built-in "add a note" function in order to identify the mountains while not disturbing the actual image with text.--Peulle 21:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 1) it is way below the minimum required size and 2) its height is so small it's hard to even tell what's in the photo. PumpkinSky 22:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Striking my oppose since I'm in unfamiliar turf here. PumpkinSky 18:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ahem... I beg to differ. The file is actually 96,850 X 2,435 pixels equals 235.83Mpx. But it is in TIFF format which means it doesn't display in a normal fashion in the viewer. You are only looking at the JPEG preview. But there are other issues that might need to be addressed here so I think a CR is in order. --W.carter 23:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I admit I'm TIFF-ignorant, so what viewer does show the whole file?PumpkinSky 01:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • You click on "Original file" below the image. Most browsers will then give you a message "Do you want to upload this file" at the bottom of your screen and it can then be opened in some photo processing program on your computer. TIFF files are large and not so easy to handle, so maybe not the best choice for this site. In that respect (only) they resemble raw files. --cart-Talk 08:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   DoneThe photo is now a .PNG--Capricorn4049 01:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Have you given any thought to the idea of changing the labels from something drawn onto the actual photo into using the Commons notes?--Peulle 13:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  Comment The Commons built-in "add a note" function doesn't work for this panorama because you don't see the picture in the image page and you dont see the notes in a zommed version of the picture.--Capricorn4049 20:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very instructive but also unwieldy. The normal common notes don´t work in such formats. I think it´s ok to integrate them permanently in the image. I know how much work this is. But I think the labels are too dominant here. A smaller font size would be equally instructive. Futher more I think, the shooting conditions were too hazy for a really good instruktive panorama. Transitions between frames are visible in the sky. You´ve got much better panoramas in your portfolio. Sorry, no QI for me. --Milseburg (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose PNG and too narrow --Ralf Roletschek 11:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support High quality and very interesting. Lines are much better than notes in this case. Yann 08:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Yann. I think it is a really interesting work and beautiful gesture.--MirandaAdramin (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for QI now. A bit bulky and hard to use, but the technical quality is undeniable. --W.carter 08:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above. -- King of Hearts 20:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --XRay 19:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)