Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 21 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:March_2023_in_Puerto_Vallarta,_Jalisco_-_042.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La Rotonda del Mar, Puerto Vallarta --Another Believer 19:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 14:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition but level of detail is too low here. --Augustgeyler 01:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many concerns here, like the halo behind the figure. But the leven of detail is really disappointing.--Der Angemeldete 03:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Kot_na_ulicy_Krakowa,_20230310_1012_3203.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cat on the street in Kraków --Jakubhal 05:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The back part looks out of focused and blurred. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 20:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Eyes are sharp. --Ermell 23:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, the standard QIC procedure tends towards focusing on the head/face of the creature depicted. --Peulle 09:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO it can be done better, that’s a common error for a shallow DoF, you have enough illumination and still keep the aperture too wide open, here's at f/5.6, so the exposure time down to 1/800 sec. --Mister rf 00:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF is so small and I think the focus is sitting on the ears and not at the eyes. --Augustgeyler 01:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but DoF is too shallow, and it does not work to emphasize something. --LexKurochkin 19:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Face and forepaws are sharp enough. We don't usually decline for the rest being blurred at full size. -- Ikan Kekek 22:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Mister rf. Plus it looks super mean. --Der Angemeldete 03:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Église_Sainte-Lucie_(Niederhergheim).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Lucia Church in Niederhergheim (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 15:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Overprocessed the perspective correction. This photo must have been taken from a very short distance and therefore be heavily corrected which resulted in an unrealistic reproduction of that church. --Augustgeyler 02:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per August, sorry I didn't notice --Fabian Roudra Baroi 04:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment In terms of geometric optics, the perspective correction does not seem to me to be technically wrong, but above a threshold that varies from subject to subject and has to be weighed individually in each case, it simply looks like crap. However, at some point I decided to no longer evaluate extreme corrections. --Smial 12:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per August Geyler.--Der Angemeldete 03:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 11:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Hindi_Wiki_Technical_Workshop-_Tropic_of_Cancer_Tour_June_2018_(32).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hindi Wiki Technical WorkshopI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 21:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 10:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Description, composition? --Kallerna 19:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Description updated -- Suyash.dwivedi 18:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment ...crop, perspective...--Der Angemeldete 12:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
As the _Tropic of Cancer line passes between two that line and also crossing the Highway in almost 30 degree of angle so I need to take the photo in this way only -- Suyash.dwivedi 18:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support You did crop out a little toward the lower right, but I think it's tolerable. -- Ikan Kekek 04:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The verticals are not correct. It might be due to rotation or lens distortion. In addition the level of detail is quite low. --Augustgeyler 10:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much clutter that could have been avoided by moving a little to the left. --GRDN711 13:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 14:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)