Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 22 2024

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Jungfernkranich_im_Tierpark_Bad_Liebenstein_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Grus virgo in Bad Liebenstein animal park --Plozessor 05:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I'm not fond of the bottom crop with the leg cut off. Let's discuss --Jakubhal 05:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose yes, leg cut off --Charlesjsharp 10:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Salah_Satu_Upacara_Besar_Di_Pura_Agung_Besakih.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A Hindu pooja ceremony at the Besakih Temple, Bali --Thi 20:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality and very interesting. Maybe the colours resp. the white balance could be improved: espec. at the top they look a bit too bluish-greenish. But maybe this is a matter of taste, I think it’s OK. --Aristeas 08:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Conditional oppose IMHO, it is a bit tilted counter clock wise, especially the right side. --C messier 22:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Good picture, only weak (and not full) support because it's slightly tilted ccw, though that does not really disturb the impression IMO. --Plozessor 05:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Marina_Bay_Singapore-070A3500-HDR.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Marina Bay Singapore --Bijay Chaurasia 08:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 07:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Kurmanbek 18:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    IMHO, it needs perspective correction, both sides are leaning in. --C messier 20:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per C messier, buildings are leaning a lot. --Sebring12Hrs 08:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Need perspective correction, but also it looks somehow overprocessed. Yes, it was a HDR shot with long exposure, but it looks like too much NR combined with too much sharpening or something like that. --Plozessor 08:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In itself a nice composition with pleasant colours. I can accept the partial overexposure in the lights. I don't dare to judge whether the reflections in the water are realistic or fake. They certainly look nice. A perspective correction would probably not lead to absurd proportions and would therefore be useful and recommendable. But what really bothers me is the strange inconsistency in the detail: you can see clear noise right next to completely noise-free areas, crisp advertising neon signs next to completely blurred windows, other façade areas show massive sharpening artefacts and/or double contours. Overprocessed. --Smial 13:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
  •  Comment New version updated with all corrections, please check once, and thank you suggestion Best -Bijay Chaurasia 09:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit noisy, but ok. Nice compo. --Sebring12Hrs 19:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Way better now. Not necessarily a reason to object, but what are those red dots on the right side (see my note in the picture)? Would it make sense and be easy to remove those? --Plozessor 19:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you again @Plozessor: I think That's the spots of bike back light. Removed and and updated another version check it once again, thank you. Best -Bijay Chaurasia 06:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Yeah! Thx! --Plozessor 07:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support now. Although there is now generally a little more image noise, I consider this to be negligible, as it is only really visible at high magnification and does not interfere with a printout in A4 or A3 size. On the other hand, details that were previously lost due to excessive denoising are now clearly visible. I find this revision quite successful aka "good enough". --Smial 11:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The new version is of good quality. --C messier 07:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 12:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)