Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 31 2022

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:2007_Passau_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A cat on a stone pole in Passau --FlocciNivis 09:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 06:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI --Ermell 08:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ermell. -- Ikan Kekek 18:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Teatro_Romea,_Murcia,_España,_2022-07-12,_DD_59.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Romea Theatre, Murcia, Spain --Poco a poco 07:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose A bit dark with many distractions. --SHB2000 10:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
    No wonder, it was sunset time. Still, I brightened it a bit. Regarding the "many distractions" I don't concur at all. I kindly ask for further reviews. --Poco a poco 12:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Light is good to me, but unfortunately the facade is blurred everywhere. --Sebring12Hrs 06:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ New version Poco a poco 07:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The lack of sharpness seems to have been caused by camera shake. In some cases this can be mitigated with post-processing (e.g., when the motion blur has a well defined direction), but regrettably I don't think that's the case here. --Julesvernex2 09:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree; you can see it on the text and the plaques that there's a sharpness problem.--Peulle 10:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others on sharpness. -- Ikan Kekek 18:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Sand_am_Main_St.Nikolaus_Luftbild-20221009-RM-162900.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of St.Nikolaus in Sand am Main --Ermell 19:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline  Comment A bit overprocessed to me. --Sebring12Hrs 16:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
    Which process is overdone? --Ermell 08:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
    Maybe others can answer that question.--Ermell 19:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality seems good for a drone shot. Perhaps noise reduction is a bit heavy-handed, but well within the realm of personal preference, in my opinion. --Julesvernex2 09:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low detail by too strong noise reduction even in A4 size print. I can't imagine that the church there and many houses are covered with anything like red roofing felt. --Smial 13:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per smial. Especially if you look at the balcony of the house in the upper left corner, this becomes obvious. It looks really washed-out --FlocciNivis 17:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Palacio_Episcopal,_Murcia,_España,_2022-07-12,_DD_39-41_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Episcopal palace, Murcia, Spain --Poco a poco 06:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Weak CA on the rainwater pipes --Ermell 08:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 09:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry @FlocciNivis: but the problems should be solved first. --Ermell 20:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell. --Sebring12Hrs 09:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Visible green and violett chromatic aberration and perspective distortion --F. Riedelio 06:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 07:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. IMO You did your best. --Sebring12Hrs 08:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now. --F. Riedelio 07:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Rjcastillo 16:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. Big improvement. -- Ikan Kekek 18:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Mallow_skipper_(Carcharodus_alceae)_Corfu_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mallow skipper (Carcharodus alceae) --Charlesjsharp 08:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Comment Not so sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 06:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    I'd like a second opinion. This looks pretty sharp to my eyes. Charlesjsharp 08:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    This image was declined (not commented) by Sebring12Hrs on 17 October which is why I sent it to review. Charlesjsharp 09:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 00:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Sufficiently sharp, good stacking. --Tagooty 13:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened, worth a re-edit with less heavy-handed AI --Julesvernex2 17:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I agree with Julesvernex2. --Sebring12Hrs 09:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Tagooty --Ermell 08:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me. --Rjcastillo 16:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)