Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 20 2022

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Shankaracharya_Temple,_Srinagar.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 19:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kinnaur_Kailash.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mount Kinnaur Kailash by Snotch --UnpetitproleX 10:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry! Too much noise. --Steindy 22:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Steindy: Reduced noise. How about now? --UnpetitproleX 23:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 05:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree, not sharp enough --Matutinho 06:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Sikorsky_CH-53K_King_Stallion,_ILA_2018,_Schönefeld_(1X7A6830).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion, ILA 2018 --MB-one 12:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Virtual-Pano 15:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too dark --Charlesjsharp 22:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support correctly exposed instead of artificially raised up --Stepro 14:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO looks underexposed. To be a quality image, there should be better detail showing in the helicopter. --GRDN711 17:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Raising the level of the shadows will bring out details of the helicopter while retaining the overall mood. I'll reconsider my vote if the image is improved. --Tagooty 02:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Bibliothèque_de_MINES_ParisTech.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bibliothèque de MINES ParisTech (by Wiki revolution) --Sebring12Hrs 19:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Seems a bit grainy? --aismallard 23:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose chromatic aberration should be removed. --F. Riedelio 06:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any significant chromatic aberration at 100%. The scene is interesting, verticals are parallel, exposure is good, sharpness is just about sufficient. --Bobulous 18:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 Comment The CA is at ceiling window. --F. Riedelio 07:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Let me put it this way: When I examine individual pixels, I find small remnants of CA at the edges of the image as well as slight noise in some darker areas of the image. However, both are not noticeable on a printout in A4 size or even larger, you have to look for them with a magnifying glass. On the other hand, the image sharpness is good enough, the lighting and the processing of the quite high subject contrast very impressive. Also, the strong wide-angle perspective does not look too unnatural. For me, at least, it's good enough as a QI. --Smial 07:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial.--Ermell 20:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

File:20181208_JMSDF_Lockheed_P-3_Orion_taxi_Naha_Air_Show_2018-10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A JMSDF P-3 Orion taxiing at the Naha Airport. --Balon Greyjoy 16:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Great image and good quality. --MB-one 13:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Image is under-exposed but fixable. Not QI in current state. --GRDN711 17:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Regarding to weather conditions I think it's not underexposed, but shows the real existing light conditions at this moment. --Stepro 12:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Who knows what the existing light conditions really were? The real issue is whether this represents a Quality Image, especially given that it is likely fixable by post-processing so you can better see detail in the plane. Look at the quality of the images that are passing in this forum (and even some that are being opposed). How does this dark image measure up to the QI guidelines on exposure and lighting? --GRDN711 17:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dull. Some s-curving would help. -- Smial 10:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed --Yeriho 08:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)