Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 28 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Canada_Goose,_Toronto_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Canada Goose --Fabian Roudra Baroi 23:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are quite a lot of violet CAs, e.g. around the head, beak, underside, feet and the concrete. --BigDom 15:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
    • @BigDom: Thanks for the review, I fixed it. I don't know how it came even in the original picture. Can you help me out?--Fabian Roudra Baroi 21:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Thanks for removing the CAs. To be honest, I do agree with Ikan about the lack of sharpness (not so bothered about the noise) given the fact it's a very common bird. For example, the head and neck don't really have any "feather" texture. Compare File:Canada goose, Cardiff Bay.jpg that I uploaded a couple of weeks ago to see what I mean. BigDom (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too noisy and unsharp for such a common, big bird. (And I couldn't help you with technique; I just say what I see.) -- Ikan Kekek 08:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the review, I tried to improve it. But in wildlife photography, grain is very common when the picture is taken in low light or zoomed at len's highest capability. With due respect, I can show you some of Charles's quality pic which has noticeable grain. Even if you look at the main Wikipedia page of Canada Goose, there are some pictures with more grain than mine.--Fabian Roudra Baroi 18:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not basing my review on the username of the photographer, but the rarity of the bird is a factor in ratings, too. -- Ikan Kekek 18:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)@Ikan Kekek: I also didn't reply based on anyone, I rather presented the fact about grain. Also, I understand about the rarity of the bird. Thanks for the review, appreciate it. Did you check the new version? My focus was on point, I don't know why it looked blur--Fabian Roudra Baroi 20:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I recleared my cache to make sure. We just have different views of what being in focus and not noisy means. If the head and neck were better, I probably wouldn't oppose. -- Ikan Kekek 06:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

File:JNTBGRI_mother_earth.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Statue of mother earth at JNTBGRI in Thiruvananthapuram,India --Shishirdasika 19:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 05:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too dark --Charlesjsharp 16:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the darkness can be fixed ? Try to work with it a bit. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 23:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --BigDom (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)