Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 13 2024

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Arthog_-_Barmouth_Bridge_-_20070915150033.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Arthog, Barmouth Bridge, Wales, with Snowdonia in the background. WikiLoves Monuments UK Winner. By User:Themountainphotographer.
  • Decline
  •  Neutral Nice view, but IMO a rather noisy borderline image, but I set it to "Promotion" according to the vote by Llywelyn2000 --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy sky and dust spots to remove. No QI now. --Milseburg 11:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It seems User:Llywelyn2000 is the nominator. So he has no vote to count.--Milseburg 11:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too grainy, NR artifacts, dust spots. Declining as there is no valid supporting vote. --Plozessor 17:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Llywelyn2000 deleted his invalid vote. The same problem exists with other nominations below. --Milseburg (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral When you zoom in, yes, there's rather a lot of grain. Thanks all! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Cwm_Cywarch.jpg[edit]

 Oppose Very nice, but unsharp. --Tournasol7 12:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Lacking detail --Tagooty 10:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Overprocessed by the smartphone, lots of NR artifacts and less real detail. --Plozessor 17:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Castell_Dolwyddelan1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dolwyddelan Castle in mist. By User:Erwynj
  • Decline
 Support Good quality. --Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose unsharp --Nikride 08:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Blurry, NR artifacts, heavy noise reduction and very low real detail. --Plozessor 17:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Copa_Garn_Rhyd_Ddu,_Eryri.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A person standing on a snowy Garn, Rhyd Ddu summit, Snowdonia. By User:Erwynj
  • Decline
 Support Good quality. --Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose it seems to be heavily downsized. --Tournasol7 12:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Resolution too low (less than 2 MP). --Plozessor 17:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Yr_Elen,_Carneddau.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Moonrise over Yr Elen, Carneddau. By User:Erwynj
  • Decline
 Support Good quality. --Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose unsharp --Nikride 08:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose blurry, heavily overprocessed, NR artifacts, very low real resolution. --Plozessor 17:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Панорама_р._Дністер_та_м._Заліщики.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view of the bend of the Dniester River near Zalishchyky, Dniester Canyon National Nature Park, Ukraine. By User:Byrdyak --Nikride 19:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The verticals at the very left should be fixed. --Ermell 22:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 09:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not solved. Please do not simply wave the image through if the points of criticism have not yet been resolved. This is also a question of respect. --Ermell 19:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't seen your comment and tilted house are not a reason for rejection imho. --Berthold Werner 13:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell. --Milseburg 11:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Very good picture, but the perspective issue mentioned by Ermell must be fixed. The houses at the left side are extremely tilted. --Plozessor 17:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

File:2020-10-04_15-03-29_-_Fontainebleau_-_Chapelle_du_Carmel.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Symbol of the Order of Carmel appearing on the center of the facade of the Carmel Chapel, in Fontainebleau. --Baidax 15:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Lacks sharpness and shouldn't it be round? --Poco a poco 18:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
  • This is an architectural detail: the bricks themselves are not smooth and there is no reason for it to be round. — --Baidax 23:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Let me precise my comment about the roundness. I was thinking that it is round and due to perspective correction it became oval, if that's not the case, just forget it. Poco a poco 11:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. If the slight CA is corrected, the sharpness should improve somewhat. Using a tripod, f/8 to f/11 and a lower ISO setting would certainly have been even more useful. --Smial 02:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slight CA and lack of sharpness, might benefit from more careful raw conversion. No issue with the roundness though. --Plozessor 17:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Red-collared_lorikeet_(Trichoglossus_rubritorquis)_Darwin.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Red-collared lorikeet (Trichoglossus rubritorquis) --Charlesjsharp 11:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Nikride 13:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose The beak and the eye look sharp (sharpened?) and the bird is beautiful, but even the adjacent feathers are very blurry and there is no detail at all on most of the bird. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, strong denoising, which resulted in substantial loss of details on the feathers, then strong sharpening --Jakubhal 13:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support head and especially the eyes are sharp, no major issues in the rest of the image IMO Christian Ferrer 22:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This one looks fine to me Poco a poco 09:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Shy_albatross_(Thalassarche_cauta)_in_flight_Bruny_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta) --Charlesjsharp 12:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Nikride 12:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened --Jakubhal 14:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly overprocessed but acceptable, very good at 4 MP, and in general a great shot. --Plozessor 04:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sorry, but this does look strongly oversharpened IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposition, details in white are gone. Christian Ferrer 22:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me, to be honest --PantheraLeo1359531 16:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The image looks totally fine. Just the background can be improved but it's acceptable. -- Hridoy Kundu 12:17, 05 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rjcastillo 01:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree, too much sharpening and the head is burnt Poco a poco 09:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)