Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 06 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:20230423_Unterer_Wehrbach_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A bridge across the Unterer Wehrbach in the Englischer Garten --FlocciNivis 10:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality--Milseburg 10:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The location of that bridge should be described more accurate or a geolocation should be given here. --Augustgeyler 23:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment Additionally I am wondering if the white balance might be off. --Augustgeyler 07:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I added the picture description. The bridge is in the English Garden in Munich. I don't understand what else is missing from the picture. -- Spurzem 11:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    •  Thank you. @FlocciNivis: I just wonder if the WB is correct. Was is looking like this on location? --Augustgeyler 06:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 14:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 03:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

File:La_Palma_-_Fuencaliente_Lighthouses_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination La Palma - Fuencaliente Lighthouses --Imehling 08:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 08:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Looks too dark to me. --Milseburg 09:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me now. --Milseburg 05:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I must agree, too dark for me. Also it's tilted CW. Both issues can be fix, so I can change my vote. --Halavar 12:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I have brightened the picture as far as I think it makes sense and turned it ccw. --Imehling 16:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looks better and I can accept that, but as I look closer I see other problem. Picture has wrong WB, it's too blue. Warming colors and also increasing saturation would definitely help fix that problem IMHO. --Halavar 18:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good rework. There is no direct sunlight in the scene, so the somewhat bluish appearance looks natural to me. --Smial 10:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 03:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Grave_of_the_G._Ghinea_Dumitrescu_Family_in_the_Bellu_Cemetery_in_Bucharest,_Romania_(01).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grave of the G. Ghinea Dumitrescu Family in the Bellu Cemetery in Bucharest, Romania
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 09:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This nomination was not signed by a nominator. --Augustgeyler 07:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image. I think it is nominated by User:Neoclassicism Enthusiast, probably on 30 April 2023. -- Spurzem 11:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment We can not promote unsigned nominations! --Augustgeyler 21:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 14:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 02:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Église_évangélique_méthodiste_(Muntzenheim).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Evangelical Methodist Church of Muntzenheim (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 06:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The gable wall is too dark and the shutter of the first window of the side wall is too light. Perhaps both can be improved. As it is now, it is not a quality image for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me, but I mind shadows much less than most QI regulars. -- Ikan Kekek 08:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Regulars? I haven't participated in QI for a long time because I no longer want to get annoyed by the sometimes wondrous reviews. But I plan to photograph a black cat in the dark, windowless basement without a flash and to present the picture here. Best regard -- Spurzem 19:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to you in particular. I've noticed that it's very typical to hate shadows at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek 23:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me. --LexKurochkin 13:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose It is not the best lighting situation. But what I think is not meeting the QI requirements is that some details of the main object are blown out: in this case the white window blinds. --Augustgeyler 07:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 02:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Resplendent_quetzal_(Pharomachrus_mocinno)_male_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Resplendent quetzal (Pharomachrus mocinno) male --Charlesjsharp 09:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose %90 plant, %10 animal. but file name says "its animal" --Modern primat 21:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Obvious QI to me. Sharp picture of a bird in its habitat. -- Ikan Kekek 06:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks perfectly ok to me --Imehling 13:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan --LexKurochkin 14:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support beautiful image of the male quetzal --Snowmanstudios 12:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others. QI for me --Halavar 12:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the bird is partially behind a thick branch with several other branches crossing the bird that are out of focus. And the head does not look sharp either, even at lower resolution. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert. --Augustgeyler 16:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 02:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)