Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 14 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:At_Berlin_2024_032.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Martin Luther Memorial, Berlin --Mike Peel 05:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 07:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burned out details at the "book". Additionally low level of detail. --Augustgeyler 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agreed with Augustgeyler, blown white --George Chernilevsky 09:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per August. --Plozessor 16:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 04:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)--Plozessor 16:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Royal_Botanic_Gardens,_Kew_2024_675.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The inside of the Kew Gardens Nash Conservatory --Mike Peel 05:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well composed. But due to intense noise reduction level of detail is too low. --Augustgeyler 08:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable IMO. --Plozessor 16:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 04:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_167.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination MG TD and TF at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 08:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Cars at the edges are cut. --Sebring12Hrs 21:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've cropped to focus more on the 4 similar cars, the ones at the edges are always going to be cut in a line-up like this. Does that help? Thanks. Mike Peel 19:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Week support. The composition works better when you view the photo in full size. --ArildV 18:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Technically good image. But even in full size the composition does not work IMO. --Augustgeyler 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice image of MG cars and good quality for QI -- Spurzem 08:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Works for me. If it would be possible to have the right car complete without having the mudguard of another car in front of it, that would be better, but I understand that it's not possible. --Plozessor 04:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 04:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Wels_Stadtplatz_24_Salome_Alt-Haus-6627.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Salome Alt-Haus, Wels, Upper Austria --Isiwal 21:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Purple CAs on the right building and tree (background), I can't add notes. --Sebring12Hrs 22:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 22:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the CAs should be removed while there are not so disturbing. --Sebring12Hrs 22:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the issue is too minor. Even without correcting this is QI. --Augustgeyler 08:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • May be you are right... --Sebring12Hrs 21:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Augustgeyler. --Plozessor 09:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm always surprised by the evaluation criteria. What bothers me about this picture is that the left side and the oriel of the building are too dark and the right side is too light. But that could be improved. -- Spurzem 14:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the exposure is fine and the contrast between the left and right side realistic (rather on the border of overcorrected). Further adjustments to shadows and highlights would only create a washed out, dull, HDR-feeling. Mo details are lost, neither in the dark nor in the light parts.--ArildV 15:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment High quality but a dust spot in the upper left corner.--ArildV 15:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment A bird... --Isiwal 18:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't mind the bird. But above is a dark circle, typical dust spot.--ArildV 18:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is Dust spots, not easy to find, but it is there. I marked it. --August (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done thanks for reviews --Isiwal 16:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--ArildV 19:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 04:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Гриб_в_заповеднике_Ертис_Орманы.jpg

[edit]

  •  Support Good now. --Augustgeyler 08:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support New version was uploaded by author. Overall quality is good. Красный 08:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support now good --Georgfotoart 08:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 04:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Sancerre_-_Tour_des_Fiefs_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sancerre (Cher, France) - Interior of Tour des Fiefs (2nd floor), a remnant of the medieval castle --Benjism89 06:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Distorded. Perspective correction is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 08:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is the kind of wind angle pictures where I really don't agree with you. Perspective correction would create something really unnatural, and I believe that this picture is much better without PC. Moving this to CR to see what others think. --Benjism89 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment difficult situation, but the door and the screen are actually distorted --Georgfotoart 19:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose This is a tough decision. One thing I can say with certainty: Perspective correction should not be applied here, as the intentional distortion is part of the wide-angle composition. I do appreciate the wide-angle approach and the idea of using this aesthetic for such a small room. However, combined with the upwards-tilted camera, the geometry ends up lacking any vertical reference. Taking all this into account, I am inclined to support this nomination. The only thing that makes me lean towards opposition is the absence of even a single straight horizontal line. Because the image isn't perfectly centred relative to the wall with the door, it gives the impression that the floor is sloping down to the right. For this reason, I have to weakly oppose. --August (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Actually, I applied a (small) horizontal perpective correction, so that horizontal lines are parallel : have a closer look to the tiles of the floor, the lower end of the wall with the door and the lower stones of the two central arches, they all align horizontally. The two lights are not aligned but they are not exactly at the same height. --Benjism89 09:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 04:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Huế_2024_July_-_Bao_Quoc_Temple_(Chùa_Báo_Quốc)_-_img_02.jpg

[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 04:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Antigua_ciudad_de_Herculano,_Italia,_2023-03-27,_DD_69.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Antigua ciudad de Herculano, Italia, 2023-03-27 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 00:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment Qulity to me looks good, but I wonder about the ceiling: are there two withish dust spots? --J. Lunau 12:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now --J. Lunau 21:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think this image suffered from very intense perspective correction leading to unrealistic dimensions. --Augustgeyler 20:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler, in theory fixable though. --Plozessor 16:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me.--Ermell 20:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 04:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)