Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 01 2022

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Kerava_stone_bridge_between_Ylikerava_and_Kaskela,_Kerava,_Finland,_2022_May.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kerava stone bridge in Kerava, Finland --Ximonic 14:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too unsharp on the image borders sorry, cropping out with crop the bridge --PantheraLeo1359531 15:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO sharpness is good enough for QI. -- IamMM 18:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is definately ok; small blurry spots are forgivable. --Mosbatho 19:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 06:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support It seems to have been a bit windy when the picture was taken and the water is flowing. Perhaps a slightly higher ISO setting would have been useful to achieve a shorter exposure time. On the other hand, only unimportant areas of the photo are affected by the motion blur, the image resolution is well above 6 Mpixels - for me this is technically good enough. I find the lighting and composition quite beautiful. --Smial 08:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 18:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Steindy 20:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Wahnfried_house_in_Bayreuth_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Wahnfried house in Bayreuth, Bavaria, Germany. --Tournasol7 17:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 19:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The perspective is wrong; in reality, the roof does not swing up left and right. Also, the picture is too dark. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 11:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment If I may give an educated guess, it could be corrected simply by adding the lens profile fix. It seems that the lens might distort the edges just slightly causing this. The distortion isn't nothing dramatic though. --Ximonic 20:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Steindy 19:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)