Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 20 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Seattle_in_May_2023_-_66.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Climate Pledge Arena, Seattle --Another Believer 02:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --N. Johannes 17:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice light and interesting view, but the image lacks texture and detail ( Overprocessed). --Augustgeyler 22:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler.--Alexander-93 16:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Seattle_in_May_2023_-_075.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Seattle Japanese Garden, U.S. --Another Believer 06:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality --Halavar 18:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose "Seattle in May 2023" is not a proper description. Additionally the image lacks sharpness and detail.--Augustgeyler 22:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Of course somebody says the picture is not sharp enough and that he miss details. The fact that the image description is now also important for the quality is a new addition. For me is the form of the picture very important too, and that is good. -- Spurzem 10:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail too low  Level of detail too low, especially the white flowers. --F. Riedelio 13:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per F. Riedelio --Jakubhal 14:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Seattle_in_May_2023_-_076.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Seattle Japanese Garden, U.S. --Another Believer 06:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Vasmar1 20:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose "Seattle in May 2023" is not a proper description. Additionally the image lacks sharpness and detail.--Augustgeyler 22:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Sharp enough for me, beautiful image, good composition. -- Spurzem 10:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail too low  Level of detail too low, especially the white flowers. --F. Riedelio 13:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per F. Riedelio --Jakubhal 14:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Parts seem overexposed. Might be fixable. -- Ikan Kekek 19:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Mallard_Ducks_in_High_Park_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mallard Duck --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no need for grass in front of face for such an easy-to-snap bird --Charlesjsharp 08:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Somewhat low DOF, but good enough for a decent A4-print. The grass is a very minor composition problem and a matter of taste. --Smial 09:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for QI, per others. -- Ikan Kekek 21:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but there are some visible CA on the grass in the lower part of the image. Also some purple fringing on feathers and the DOF is low, the head is not all in focus, because the exposure time is to small and to compensate the diaphragm is wide open. Try the opposite. It's a standing duck. :) -- Mister rf 00:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, I worked a bit on the CA and the fringing. As I was taking the picture without a tripod I wanted to make sure the picture is sharp, so I used a higher shutter speed. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support ok. --Rjcastillo 02:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok, for me --Jakubhal 04:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 23:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Irschenberger_Str._7_St._Korbinian_Dettendorf_Bad_Feilnbach-1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Irschenberger Straße 7; Filialkirche St. Korbinian; barocke Anlage, 1669, ausgebaut 1735; mit Ausstattung. By Rufus46 --Nightflyer 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Tilted, lacks perspective correction --Poco a poco 07:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support New version is QI, thank you Spurzem Poco a poco 08:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose And very slight pink CA on left side of the building --LexKurochkin 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Looks like I cannot see the new version, clicking on both versions I see the same result at full resolution. --LexKurochkin 09:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I made the small corrections myself and I hope that the critics will agree if I rate the picture with QI. -- Spurzem 13:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think, we need to discuss it --LexKurochkin 15:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • IMO it's a license violation now. Authors of the image are Rufus46 (original) and Spurzem (overwritten original/derivative). --XRay 08:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for 2012 and at least a borderline QI in 2023. -- Ikan Kekek 06:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info I started discussion on self-approval practice on Discussion page. I am not sure, if we can just count votes for this nomination, as the last version was made and uploaded by Spurzem who supported it. Sorry. --LexKurochkin 07:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good looking. Resolution and detail are borderline. I think as an editor we should not vote on nominations. --Augustgeyler 08:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 08:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Something went wrong with the re-edit at the bottom, should be easy to fix though. --Julesvernex2 10:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done. @Julesvernex2: You are right. Please look now. -- Spurzem 17:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Luminance noise could be improved. --F. Riedelio 09:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good job fixing it. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 08:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Ola_Ryggefjord_in_Salthella,_Austevoll_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ola Ryggefjord in Salthella, Austevoll. --Vasmar1 05:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Neutral There is something very strange with ship's name on the starboard. Several letters look blurred, like motion blur, but the most of the ship, and even part of its name is obviously sharp. Frankly, I don't understand how it might happen. --LexKurochkin 08:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Those details are not so important IMO.That's a nice pic. --Mister rf 18:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice pic indeed, but the blurred areas are noticeable even without zooming in (e.g. above the bridge and below the radar, on the poop deck). Caused by water droplets on the lens front element, perhaps? --Julesvernex2 11:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • The picture was taken inside my car, trough an open window, with no rain that day, so it can't be water causing it. It would be good to find out until next time. --Vasmar1 05:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
    • This one is a head-scratcher... It kinda seems like heat haze, but they're not near any obvious exhaust vent? It doesn't seem like an issue with the lens either (as it doesn't get worse towards the edges), but it's maybe worthwhile to take a few test shots to double-check --Julesvernex2 18:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Yes, possible that it is due to heat haze because the photo was taken from the car, trough an open window, considering the temperature differences between inside and outside. -- Mister rf 21:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support The luminance noise could be improved. --F. Riedelio 09:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support ok. --Rjcastillo 02:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 08:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Catedrala_Patriarhală,_București_(2023)_-_IMG_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Romanian Orthodox Patriarchal Cathedral, Bucharest --Chainwit. 08:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --J. Lunau 09:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition. But due to intense sharpening and noise reduction level of detail is too low here. --Augustgeyler 19:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yeah, a lot of the photo looks strange, and the left side of the sky looks like it has smudges put on top of it like somewhat thick paint, rather than clouds. -- Ikan Kekek 06:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler and Ikan Kekek --LexKurochkin 07:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler --Halavar 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing person in the foreground --F. Riedelio 09:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler and Ikan --Jakubhal 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Mumbai_-_Municipal_Corporation_Building.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mumbai - Municipal Corporation Building --Imehling 05:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Poor crop. --SHB2000 08:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question What's so bad about the crop? --Imehling 15:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The issue with the crop is that it could be nicer to include the entire fence around the statue. However, this crop is defensible, and the building is well captured. -- Ikan Kekek 07:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The very strong PC led to unrealistic proportions of the buildings reproduction. --Augustgeyler 21:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I wonder how you want to get such a building from that point of view without some distortion. This is just physically impossible. --Imehling 06:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment From this point of view there is no QI possible. Even with a wider lens, that standpoint would have to be much higher. Sometimes there is an alternative point of view available. Or another composition by selecting details of the building might work. But yes, there are objects which can't (or at least not without unrealistic amounts of effort) be photographed under QI standards. --Augustgeyler 09:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
        • You could get a better point of view by using a drone. But you would probably end up in a prison for planning a terrorist attack if you tried to do that in Mumbai ;-) --Imehling 19:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 09:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --Rjcastillo 02:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Per others. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)~
  •  Support Ok for QI --Jakubhal 14:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 23:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Seattle_in_May_2023_-_048.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Seattle Japanese Garden --Another Believer 14:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 16:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not conviced about the sharpness here, sorry --Poco a poco 18:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Sharpness could be better, but good for me. -- Spurzem 16:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not really sharp, slightly overprocessed, clouds are partly blown-out --LexKurochkin 09:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 11:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree, that sharpness could be better, but I think it's enough for a QI --Halavar 12:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail is IMHO too low  Level of detail too low --F. Riedelio 09:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. In addition to the observations that have been made, the sky is posterized. -- Ikan Kekek 21:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 08:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)