Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 30 2022

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Jungle Myna bathing, Nagarhole 3 Apr22 D72 24095.jpg[edit]

File:Campagna_in_Rignano_sull'Arno_in_giugno_2022.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Countryside in Rignano sull'Arno in June 2022--PROPOLI87 07:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Good composition and colours, but lacking in detail. --Tagooty 03:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 08:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, good composition, good colors. Which detail should be lacking? -- Spurzem 13:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality to my eyes. Could use some appropriate categories for the bale of hay and some of the trees, though. -- Ikan Kekek 16:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  CommentOk, I added the categories olive grove and Round straw bales in ItalyPROPOLI87 06:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 06:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek 01:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Playa_de_Riviera,_isla_de_Malta,_Malta,_2021-08-23,_DD_63-65_HDR.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Riviera Beach, Malta Island, Malta --Poco a poco 08:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Sorry! Overall not sharp. --Steindy 11:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Vote deleted after editing the photo. Sorry, I didn't know that this contra at Poco a poco triggers such emotions! --Steindy 22:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    Dear Steindy, this review is riduculous, if you hadn't done it blinded by a revenge vote you would agree. No worries, I'll not review anymore your footballer pictures anymore, how can precisely YOU oppose due to sharpenss issues. This image has 6 times more resolution that your pictures. --Poco a poco 16:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 Comment @Poco a poco: It is ridiculous and almost insulting to impose a revenge rating on me. Take a close look at your photo, not a single person is sharp and the landscape is mostly out of focus. --Steindy (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 Comment You have a serious problem, I cannot help anymore. If you expect to see sharp faces from a distance of 300 m with a wide lens, then I'd have to expect sharp sweat drops in your 2000x3000 tele images where even the faces are blurry. You've already "voted" here, now please let others do the same, if you allow. Thank you. Poco a poco 23:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Lack of sharpness is certainly not an argument against this photo, considering the resolution offered. For me, it is, as it is, a QI. Nevertheless, I have comments: a) The image noise increases in the lightened shadow areas, details look somewhat "torn" as a result. b) In the sun itself, of course, one would not demand detail drawing, but I would find it good if one could at least guess a circular area there and not an undefined overexposed spot. c) The tower on the right at the edge of the picture looks crooked, but this can possibly correspond to the facts. All together, however, not serious enough to reject the image. --Smial 13:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  • Agree, ✓ new version uploaded it was too bright and that showed some noise in darker areas. I've applied some denoising and darkened it (now you see a circle around the sun), I also applied a perspective correction. Thanks for your solid review and support --Poco a poco 21:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
great now! Thx! --Smial 08:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 22:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 04:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, --Snowmanstudios 09:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough from that distance. Nacaru 22:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 13:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)