Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 12 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Alcazaba_de_Almería_2022_027.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Alcazaba de Almería --Mike Peel 07:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not sure, if the left edge of the tower is curved or it's a lens-related distortion. --Draceane 10:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
    • @Draceane: I've checked, and lens corrections are turned on, so I don't think it's the lens? But am not sure. Thanks. Mike Peel 11:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose  Underexposed. The exposure should be more natural. --Augustgeyler 06:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    • @Augustgeyler: Brightened, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 11:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
      •  Neutral Switching to neutral. It is exposed naturally now.  Thank you. --Augustgeyler 09:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but I can't go for this perspective.--Der Angemeldete 14:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support From this and other images of the subject I see that it takes a helicopter to photograph it in accordance with QI standard approach. Shift-lens might help to some extent but they are rather rare. So, I consider it a complex case handled well under the circumstances. --LexKurochkin 06:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Lex.--Ermell 20:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 02:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Sunflower_in_Sri_Lanka.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sunflower in Sri Lanka --A-wiki-guest-user 14:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 21:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is not sharp enough.--Mister rf 17:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 10:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support It's focussed, it's sharp, it's some sort of bug and a flower in there, what else do we need for a good QI?--Der Angemeldete 14:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose It has no geocode and just states that it was taken in Sri Lanka, which is not precise enough. --Augustgeyler 12:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support We don't need geocodes for all images. --Kritzolina 08:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
    •  Agree We can use proper description of a location instead of using a geocode. But in general: QI needs a qualified statement about the location for all subjects that can or should be located. Here I think "Sri Lanka" is just not precise enough. --August Geyler (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's a small concern. @A-wiki-guest-user: , may you add more proper local information to your image? (or a geolocation, if somebody want's to visit the flower someday).--Der Angemeldete (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 02:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Strachy_na_Lachy_Rockowizna_2022_Gdańsk_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Krzysztof Grabowski --Msz2001 16:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support DoF rather limited but compensated by capturing the mood imho --Virtual-Pano 18:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, hand and microphone are cut off and out of focus. --Jacek Halicki 21:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient DoF and, yes, I would cropped out the microphone completely. --LexKurochkin 17:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Virtual-Pano. Very difficult lighting well handled. Good sharpness. If there is any problem with the crop or the composition, I would crop a bit on the left and the right side, but that is not very important. --Smial 15:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me.--Ermell 20:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 02:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)