Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 05 2022

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Malot_temple,_Jhelum,_Punjab.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Malot temple, Jhelum by Maliktalha888 --UnpetitproleX 19:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline That's really pretty, but I'd like the subject to be sharper and I don't know if that's possible without oversharpening. -- Ikan Kekek 22:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    I've attempted some subtle sharpening. --UnpetitproleX 01:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    It is better, but I doubt the top is sharp enough. I'd like another person's opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 04:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose Limited depth of causing a soft top of tower - as per Ikan Kekek --Virtual-Pano 13:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose Limited depth of field leading to blurry top of tower - as per Ikan Kekek --Virtual-Pano 13:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose Unsuitable aperture / depth of field creating a soft top of tower --Virtual-Pano 13:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

     Question Why is this going to Consensual Review with only an opposing vote? By the way, Virtual-Pano, you get only one vote. -- Ikan Kekek 21:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    I am sorry this was unintentional and most likely based by looking at a cached version. I have striked those out. --Virtual-Pano 22:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    I thought the rules meant that nominators could send a declined entry to consensual review, I apologise if this is not the case. I sent it because of the multiple (accidental) opposes by a single editor. --UnpetitproleX 00:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
     Comment You absolutely can, but you hadn't said anything. -- Ikan Kekek 04:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Alberobello_illuminato_a_festa.png

[edit]

  • Nomination Alberobello illuminato a festa (by Maurizio Moro5153) --Sebring12Hrs 17:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline Small but good, but again, doesn't it need another category, such as one for festive lighting (what festival is that in late September, by the way)? -- Ikan Kekek 21:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good quality, but needs better categorization. --aismallard 23:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Then we need to provisionally oppose it, so it doesn't pass without suitable categorization. -- Ikan Kekek 21:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Such images should have at least 6 Mpixels nowadays. Not an action shot, use of a tripod is possible. --Smial 13:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    •  Comment The image is 1442 x 1920=2768640 --Sebring12Hrs 14:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC).
      •  Comment I know. That's above the hard limit of 2 MPixels, but below 3 MPixels. See QI guidelines: "reviewers may choose to demand more if the image would benefit from it." --Smial 16:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

File:ParticipantesAnivGardey.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination People arriving to parade of 109th birthday of village of Gardey, Tandil Partido, Argentina --Ezarate 23:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not sure it does a good job centering the subject well? Seems like an okay photo but I don't think it's QI. --aismallard 23:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I like to see another opinions --Ezarate 23:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very grainy, especially the faces. --Palauenc05 11:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appears heavily oversharpened, including the grain and the compression artifacts. --Smial 13:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Glebionis_coronaria,or_Crown_Daisy_in_the_gardens_of_Darjeeling_Tourist_Lodge,_a_property_maintained_by_WBTDC_1_of_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Glebionis coronaria,or Crown Daisy in the gardens of Darjeeling Tourist Lodge, a property maintained by WBTDC--Subhrajyoti07 01:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Good image as thumbnail. Maybe a bit dark. In screen size you see that the center is blurred or out of focus --Hangman'sDeath 12:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. IMHO sharp enough at 2 MP, and even at 2244 x 2048 pixels. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacking sharpness. --Johannes Robalotoff 08:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Some changes made to the image. Please check if this addresses the concern - Subhrajyoti07 03:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The first version is nowhere really sharp. The reworked version has weird sharpeing artifacts and noise pattern. A pity, because colours, composition, and lighting are very nice. --Smial 13:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

File:20181208_Blue_Impulse_Kawasaki_T-4_takeoff_Naha_Air_Show_2018-27.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A JASDF Blue Impulse T-4 taking off at Naha Airport. --Balon Greyjoy 06:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    IMO unfavorable image composition: The object is too far to the right edge of the image. --F. Riedelio 05:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not done within one week. --F. Riedelio 16:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good composition: The clearly visible contrails convey the impression of speed. Good sharpness, too. --Palauenc05 06:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Palauenc05's very persuasive argument. -- Ikan Kekek 06:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support The easily recognizable exhaust jet is part of the composition. This is very well captured. I think the picture is slightly overexposed, details have been lost in the white painted areas. At least this did not result in any colour distortions, so I support the candidate despite minor flaws. --Smial 08:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support. The brightened version is very good. -- Spurzem 10:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality. Blur of the background due to panning adds to impression of speed. --Tagooty 03:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)