Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 27 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:20230211_St-Johann-Nepomuk-Museum_Plattling_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from the other side of the Passauer Straße to the St-Johann-Nepomuk-Museum in Plattling --FlocciNivis 11:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose it is not bad photo but it is looking simple --Modern primat 20:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support It's ok IMO. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 00:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, no prolems IMO --LexKurochkin 11:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. @Modern primat: , If you don't like the composition or the pictured object, please don't review. This is unfair against the photographer, who tried to get good quality from his shots, since this is the place to evaluate the quality, not the objects taken or the artistic decision behind it. As always, Commons also got a place to do that.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 23:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 03:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Bus_stop,_Binz_(P1090703).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bus stop in Binz, Rügen --MB-one 13:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose it is looking blank --Modern primat 20:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Modern primat@ Please elaborate on your rationale. --MB-one 10:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beside from the personal taste on the composition here, and that the review doesn't really weigh in some reasonable opinion, I have to say, that the bus stop sign and the bin are overexposed. A tigther crop could also be tried (due to the main object).--Der Angemeldete 12:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment It looks OK to me, except that there should probably be a perspective correction on the right. -- Ikan Kekek 23:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 03:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Fiume_Adige_Ponte_Pietra.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Verona --Adert 19:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Combrian 21:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As the camera was tilted upwards unnecessarily, perspective distortion needs to be fixed. --Augustgeyler 21:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Verticals wrong and low detail on the left.--Der Angemeldete 12:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Der Angemeldete --LexKurochkin 15:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 03:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Uğur_Mumcu'nun_29._ölüm_yıl_dönümündeki_mezarı.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination grave of assasinated journalist from turkey, uğur mumcu. Modern primat 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.  Oppose --Der Angemeldete 16:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This imige is tilted ccw and its level of detail is low. --Augustgeyler 23:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Focus is on the grave and I saw QI's with far less detail on the object. One can argue about perspective but I couldn't figure out a tilt here.--Der Angemeldete 03:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose It looks tilted (check the gravestone in background), but finding the right angle would be really tricky for this image, I have also a feeling that it needs perspective correction, and the level of detail looks marginal (check flowers on the subject). It is potential VI, but not QI IMO --LexKurochkin 12:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Convinced, the perspective should be corrected in first place, which is quite difficult from this angle. But the level of detail still looks ok to me.--Der Angemeldete 12:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the coverage of and focus on the subject is sufficient. I'm not sure I understand how this got put in consensual review, though. -- Ikan Kekek 23:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 03:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Çimşit_Mezarlığı_civarında_çekilen_bir_manzara.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination good photo of ankara Modern primat 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Could also be taken in the Börde, lacks detail unfortunately. --Der Angemeldete 16:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment what do you expect? a signboard writed "ankara" on it? --Modern primat 17:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment Why not? Or a half moon in the sky... but that's honestly not a point here. The composition is nice, but it lacks detail either due to exposure issues or due to a slightly bad focus (which would be somewhere in the sky I guess) --Der Angemeldete 20:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low resolution and visible noise --LexKurochkin 08:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very low level of detail. --Augustgeyler 09:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition is ok, I also like the colours and lighting. But apart from the perspective correction that was actually necessary (the electricity pylons are falling down), noise reduction and JPEG compression have led to a blotchy gradation in the tonal values and to blurring in general. --Smial 12:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment JPEG compression is a good point. Didn't noticed the EXIF in first place. Maybe, the original image could've had higher quality (beside from the perspective correction).--Der Angemeldete 12:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Is this a cellphone pic? Everything that isn't in the near foreground is lacking in details, noisy and distorted. Pretty, but not a quality image. -- Ikan Kekek 23:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 03:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Amazon_kingfisher_(Chloroceryle_amazona)_male_Cayo_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Amazon kingfisher (Chloroceryle amazona) male --Charlesjsharp 13:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 13:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The neck is over exposed, also it loons unnatural and posturized. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 20:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me. A QI doesn't have to be perfect, but this is solid. -- Ikan Kekek 23:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 03:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Catedral_de_San_Miguel_y_Santa_Gúdula_de_Bruselas,_Bélgica,_2021-12-15,_DD_40-42_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stained-glass in the cathedral of St. Michael and St. Gudula, Brussels, Belgium --Poco a poco 19:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Der Angemeldete 23:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please make the verticals straight! --Uoaei1 05:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In this photo, it is not necessary to force all verticals to be vertically corrected, but the center column of the window should already be vertical. --Smial 12:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version Don't be unpatient, easy fix Poco a poco 17:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    •  Support OK now IMO --LexKurochkin 19:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment Left side is fine, right side is still leaning in. --Uoaei1 10:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
      • I've uploaded a new version. Better? --Poco a poco 18:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
        •  Support Fine now for me, thanks. Very good image. One final minor point: maybe you could also improve the horizontal lines (base of the window, vaults). --Uoaei1 05:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Rjcastillo 23:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Better. --Smial 23:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 11:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Mouche (Muscomorpha) (5 dioptries) (6).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fly (Muscomorpha) (5 diopters) in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 10:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Lack of detail. --Kallerna 10:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support There is detail; it just has a short depth of field. -- Ikan Kekek 19:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Yes, narrow DoF, it really is. But it's clear where the focus is on here. What bothers me more is the slight tilt ccw.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Yes there is focus at the "eyes". But resolution is low (not too low), detail is borderline due to strong crop and it looks slightly  Underexposed. --Augustgeyler 22:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Mister rf 01:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 11:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Playa_Pichidangui_-_A742133.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view of Pichidangui Beach. --Rjcastillo 04:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

* Oppose 2 obvious stitching errors in the shoreline to remove. --Milseburg 10:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

    • ✓ Done thanks. --Rjcastillo 16:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment The stitching problems are gone. But now I'm wondering if there aren't better ways of getting the woman unrecognizable at the beginning. She could also be completely off-screen if she's not allowed to be shown. --Milseburg 14:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment More stitching errors, see green wooden bars bottom left and right. --Palauenc05 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done thanks. --Rjcastillo 17:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 20:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think there is still one stitching problem remaining, to the left of the top of the hill on the right. It's to the left of the agave plant and between the moving truck and parked cars, but of course all the way back. -- Ikan Kekek 23:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

*  Oppose Ikan is right. Please correct before promotion. Sorry. --Milseburg 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done corrected a bit. --Rjcastillo 23:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. -- Ikan Kekek 00:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 03:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Arnultovice_kriz.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wayside cross east of Arnultovice, Czechia --JiriMatejicek 13:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --KaiBorgeest 22:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A good composition. Bu the sky looks very dark compared to daytime and might be  Underexposed. There are artefacts at the sky as well. And the level of detail is quite borderline. --Augustgeyler 02:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Digital artefacts on sky and near high-contrast edges, rather low level of detail at the main subject. --LexKurochkin 08:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The very bright panel is quite acceptably exposed, which leads to a certain underexposure of all other parts of the image due to the high lighting contrast. Therefore, the somewhat dark sky is quite expected and not unnatural. Image noise and artifacts are visible in full resolution, but do not interfere with a print in DIN A4 size. The photo has certain slight flaws, but is good enough for QI, and the photographer did nothing wrong. --Smial 12:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree that it's on the dark side for 16:20, 29 August 2022, but it's of good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 22:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I find Auto white balance in the EXIF. May explain the somewhat darker colors, which look abolute ok here. But the level of detail from this distance is really disturbing. I wouldn't promote this.----Der Angemeldete 03:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Vignetting and per others --Uoaei1 06:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 11:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)