Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 30 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:June_2024_in_Seattle,_WA,_US_-_060.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Howe Street Stairs, Seattle --Another Believer 23:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Good composition. But there was too much processing involved here. Over-sharpening and intense de noising led to  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support @Augustgeyler: What do you mean when you write in bold: Too little detail? For example, I see two dandelion leaves between the steps and can see the veins. I ask to discuss. Indeed the upper part in the middle is a bit overexposed. -- Spurzem 12:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I did not write in bold. I was using a template referring to a technical issue where over-processing eliminates the detailed texture of the surfaces in an image. This is a common issue with some smartphone images and it is not detected by counting leaves but by comparing the accuracy of reproduction of surfaces. I know that you don't mind (or see) this due to other discussions in the past. But as long as we don't find a double image of the same object (one with and one without over-processing) I will never be able to give you that answer for the question you are asking usually and repetitively in those cases. I am sorry having no solution so far. --Augustgeyler 17:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • weak  Support Not too bad, good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 08:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --August Geyler (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

File:June 2024 in Seattle, WA, US - 057 - Howe Street Stairs.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Howe Street Stairs, Seattle --Another Believer 23:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 13:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image looks over contrasted and over-processed. Over-sharpening and intense de-noising led to unnatural reproduction here. --Augustgeyler 17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support What Augustgeyler says tends to be true, but in this case I think the result is still acceptable. There are a few small overexposed details where the contrast range of the sensor was not sufficient, but they don't destroy the overall impression, as is often the case with photos with bright white clouds. --Smial 09:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Very good for me. I see no of the many supposed lacks. -- Spurzem 10:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Not perfect but good enough for QI. Some overprocessing in the background but that does not disturb the overall impression. --Plozessor 03:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The file name should be more specific though. --Plozessor 03:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Plozessor: I've been bold and renamed the file. I think you could just do this directly whenever you think that Commons filenames aren't specific enough, I think cases like these fall under #2 of Commons:File renaming. Thanks. Mike Peel 11:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --August Geyler (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Royal_Botanic_Gardens,_Kew_2024_063.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Princess of Wales Conservatory, Kew Gardens --Mike Peel 08:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment I think it lacks sharpness. Let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 20:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Sharpened, does that look better? Marking as discuss due to the comment about others, since commenting on a nomination tends to hide it from other reviewers. Thanks. Mike Peel 00:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately it is still too soft. --Augustgeyler 08:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Borderline but IMO just below the bar. --Plozessor 03:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 07:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)