Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 02 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Castle_in_Malbork,_sculpture_in_the_church02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A sculpture in Malbork Castle --Lvova 04:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • It looks tilted cw. --Augustgeyler 08:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks ok to me --Kritzolina 20:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @Kritzolina: I just made a comment on this nomination. Please be so kind and wait until the first reviewer got into contact with the nominator before voting against it. --Augustgeyler 22:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It was corrected anyway, so what to wait? Lvova 04:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It is always helpful to leave a comment after you made an edit so that reviewers can check again.  Thank you. Good quality now. --Augustgeyler 07:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 18:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Volkswagen_Type_181_IMG_9608.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Volkswagen Type 181 in Böblingen --Alexander-93 16:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only the front is in focus. ReneeWrites 10:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of DoF per ReneeWrites. --Plozessor 16:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 18:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Indian_woman_graceful_performance_with_Rajasthani_folk_costume_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Indian woman graceful performance with Rajasthani folk costume --PetarM 08:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Thi 22:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange texture on the forehead (horizontal banding), needs discussion ReneeWrites 06:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I cannot see any strange texture, but the image might be a bit soft at full resolution. However, it looks fine with 4 megapixels. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The problem is, that I can not see any texture. The image looks  Overprocessed by intense de-noising. --Augustgeyler 07:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 14:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler:--Ermell 21:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. With so much texture lost, it looks like a reproduction of a painting, not a photo of a living person --Jakubhal 04:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Plozessor 16:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 18:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Grote_Kerk_Breda_koorhek_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Choir screen in front of the high choir --ReneeWrites 19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Due to chosen angle and lens the image is too distorted. --Augustgeyler 08:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Who moved this to CR without commenting ore voting?
  • That was me, sorry. I wanted to write a comment about how this is a normal way for the screen to look at this angle & that the angle I chose wasn't that extreme, but in that moment I didn't know how to say that in a good way. ReneeWrites 11:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Did you apply perspective correction here? --Augustgeyler 12:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nothing is distorded here. Lol. --Sebring12Hrs 07:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems ok to me.--Ermell 21:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very well done perspective correction. --Tournasol7 04:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 07:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Malo-Konushenny_Bridge,_опора_фонаря.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Malo-Konushenny Bridge --Lvova 04:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Good composition, but the main object is not in focus and some highlights are burned out. --Augustgeyler 23:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I absolutely sure that the head is in focus. --Lvova 21:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sure about the focus, but the golden part is definitely burned out. In general it seems to be an overprocessed smartphone picture. --Plozessor 16:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 18:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Stettin_im_NOK2.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Der Eisbrecher Stettin im Nord-Ostsee Kanal bei Rendsburg auf dem Weg zur Kieler Woche 2012. By Wusel007 --Nightflyer 12:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose It is a nice and already used image. But it shows motion blur / is too soft and has not much detail. --Augustgeyler 13:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Please don't overdo. I see a good and beautiful image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the motion blur is quite obvious. --Augustgeyler 07:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Where? -- Spurzem 12:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. ReneeWrites 18:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see any noticable motion blur. In full resolution it's not perfect (which seems due NR), but good enough, and at 4 MP it's really good. --Plozessor 03:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Augustgeyler. When you look at the image in detail, something is not sharp (not sure if it's motion blur or color depth or something0. Part of it may just be the light. If it was a bright sunny day, this cell phone image might be acceptable. --GRDN711 03:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 07:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)