Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 16 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Langfenn,_chiesa_di_San_Giacomo_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint James church in Mölten, Italy --Syrio 09:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Please check the verticals. --Ermell 19:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Uhm they look good to me; could you explain? --Syrio 10:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The church is leaning out when you look at the left side of the tower and the right side of the house. --Ermell 14:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Uuuhm yeah but that's how it looks from this point of view? I'd have to warp the photo to make those lines vertical, the perspective would look wrong and I'm not really willing to do that :| --Syrio 15:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. Verticals seem in accordance with the perspective of the image. --Lrkrol 14:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Lrkrol. At least it's better than too strong a correction. --Smial 11:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Grande_aigrette.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great egret in Djerba. By User:Skander zarrad --TOUMOU 17:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Lrkrol 18:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lighting too harsh, insufficient contrast between subject and background. Sensor spot top-left (fixable). --Tagooty 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Tagooty --Nikride 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tagooty. Красный 21:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 01:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Badajoz_-_Puerta_de_Palmas_-_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Badajoz (Extremadura, Spain) - Puerta de Palmas‎ --Benjism89 14:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 18:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It needs a perspective correction, top crop too tight --Poco a poco 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 07:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Poco a poco and Sebring12Hrs: Although I don't really agree with the demands for perspective correction (in my opinion, perspective correction should only be used when your subject is two-dimensional and you're not interested about everything around, which is not the case here), I did correct perspective and uncrop the top of it. Benjism89 11:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks better now to my eye. BigDom 03:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Nacaru 09:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, and possibly a slight cushion distortion. Foreground somewhat dark, but still acceptable. Irrespective of the fact that the image sharpness is definitely sufficient considering the image resolution: Is f/14 the "sweet spot" with the lens used or are we already seeing the first effects of diffraction blurring here? I would probably have used f/5.6 or f/8 with my cheap Tamron zoom (it's very soft at open aperture...), because from f/16 it gets visibly worse again. --Smial 23:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial, sorry but the perspective correction is to strong. --Sebring12Hrs 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 01:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Schleswig-Holstein,_Todenbüttel,_Friedhof_NIK_0569.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grab auf dem Friedhof von Todenbüttel --Nightflyer 11:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Tight crop. --SHB2000 23:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Tight crop, seriously ? --Sebring12Hrs 22:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The crop's fine to me. --ReneeWrites 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me. Nacaru 23:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--ArildV 07:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral To be honest, I'm not entirely happy with the photo. On the one hand, the lighting is very harsh, resulting in very hard shadows. Ok, many people think that's great because it suggests high image sharpness. On the other hand, the photo looks crooked. I would probably have oriented the camera towards the background. Yes, then the grave cross is most likely crooked, but that is very often the case with these grave fields around old churches and would be a more realistic representation in my opinion. --Smial 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 01:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_072.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tympanum at the Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork --Scotch Mist 06:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad crops and not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 11:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Another perspective? --Scotch Mist 13:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. And noise. And a strange perspective. Was there no better position for the camera to photograph the object so that it doesn't look so crooked? --Smial 00:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 16:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_071.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tympanum at the Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork --Scotch Mist 05:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not very sharp and noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 00:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    This type of stone sculpture does not have the inherent sharpness of a precise marble sculpture and also given the aged colouring perhaps appears overly noisey but IMHO the image is still worthy of consideration for QI! --Scotch Mist 08:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. Also unfortunate lighting. --Smial 00:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 16:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)