Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 04 2022

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Baltic_Sea_and_Cloud.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Reflection of clouds in the Baltic sea.--Jsamwrites 05:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose too hazy and low in contrast, monotonous composition, hardly any reflection visible, vignetting, insufficient categories in relation to the cloud. Sorry. --Milseburg 10:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Fixed the categories. The picture is indeed (meant to be) monotonous where the separation of sky and sea is indistinguishable. The changes in contrast may highlight the horizon. --Jsamwrites 15:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support The image composition is quite obviously intended by the photographer exactly as it is. As a thumbnail it looks unimpressive, but in full size it is successful. The reworked version now also has a horizontal horizon and looks technically flawless to me and I really like it. --Smial 10:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial. -- Ikan Kekek 06:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Kritzolina 07:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial. --LexKurochkin 12:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 22:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Lince_ibérico_(Lynx_pardinus),_Almuradiel,_Ciudad_Real,_España,_2021-12-19,_DD_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus), Almuradiel, Ciudad Real, Spain --Poco a poco 08:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jsamwrites 09:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great composition, but I think this is not sharp enough. --Till.niermann 10:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment To be honest, I just bought the Topaz AI Denoising SW to rework precisely this image (along with others, but this one specially). I believe that the result is acceptable and at 2 MPx it would likely become QI, but indeed I opted for offering more resolution. This shot was taken after sitting for a whole day in a hide in a park with some of this rare lynx species, it showed up just after sunset when we were already getting ready to drive back 600 km home without any success...Poco a poco 16:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A good composition, but below the QI in terms of sharpness. --Tagooty 03:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Not perfect, but good enough to be printed to A4-size. Even if the sharpness is not up to the highest standards, the composition, lighting and colours make up for it. And it's above 6 MPixels. For other wild life photos, we accept images with significantly lower resolution here. --Smial 11:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others. --Palauenc05 22:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 06:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell 19:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 22:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

File:St._Jacobus_in_Hambach_IMG_2545.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Katholische Kirche St. Jacobus in Hambach. --Fischer.H 16:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Jsamwrites 17:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown windows. Sorry. --Ermell 18:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The overexposed windows in the background are not too disturbing because they do not look unnatural. At least details are still recognizable in them. But the perspective correction is not successful and there seems to be a slight pincushion distortion. Please take a look at the cable of the right chandelier. In my opinion, it should be straight and hanging vertically, unless physics has changed a lot recently. --Smial 11:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support The windows are of minor importance to me. --Palauenc05 15:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Per Palauenc05 --LexKurochkin 08:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
    •  Comment The strong distortion by overdoing perspective correction doesn't bother? --Smial 14:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
      •  Comment I would say that the distortion is not so strong. But checking the image thoroughly for distortion, I noted that the right side verticals are not exactly vertical. Changed my vote to weak support --LexKurochkin 20:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose via Ermell. Because of the blown windows we can not see the bars, which are an integral element of the architectural ensemble.--Mike1979 Russia 13:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Milseburg 22:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)