Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 22 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Bupleurum_stellatum_2_RF.jpg

[edit]

  •  Comment I can see a single umbel that is clearly blurry. An attempt to correct this would be very unwise and presumably result in overprocessing. If this is "a large part", then this is probably not a QI. Are there any other opinions? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 20:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lyon_6e_-_Parc_de_la_Tête_d'Or_-_Statue_de_Bernard_de_Jussieu_-_Côté_droit.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue de Bernard de Jussieu --Romainbehar 15:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 11:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is good but neither hands nor face are visible here, and this is important when depicting a statue. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 03:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support "Côté_droit" in french is "right side" in english. Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 11:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Is it not legitimate to take pictures from all sides? User also took a picture from the front, but this one shows the side of the statue. --Plozessor 13:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This side view confuses me a little. But OK, thanks for the clarification. -- Екатерина Борисова 14:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 03:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Looking_up_the_Liaison_slope_towards_Sommet_des_Rousses,_La_Thuile,_2024.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination La Thuile ski area, Italy --DimiTalen 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Seems quite blurred --Remontees 23:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This should not be here in CR, it has no votes for or against. Please don't send nominations straight to discussion without casting a vote. BigDom 08:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed. But as it is here now, voting against because it really is blurry. --Plozessor 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:2024_Hotel_i_restauracja_Śnieżnik_w_Kłodzku_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Śnieżnik hotel and restaurant in Kłodzko 2 --Jacek Halicki 01:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Name sign is blurry, perhaps camera shake? --Tagooty 02:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looking sharp to me. Maybe @Tagooty: your browser didn't load the image fully? --Plozessor 06:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks fine to me too. BigDom 02:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 06:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 08:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Церква_Макіївка.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saints Peter and Paul church, Makiivka. Created by Олександр Олександрович Павленко. --Lystopad 16:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Nikride 20:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO overprocessed, there is a bright halo between the building and the sky. --C messier 13:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Overcontrasted (probably increased clarity and dynamics without decreasing contrast). Should not be hard to fix with better raw conversion though. --Plozessor 06:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed as is, but agree with Plozessor that it should be fixable. BigDom 02:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 08:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Cat_in_Piran,_Slovenia,_20240504_1659_8682.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cat in Piran, Slovenia --Jakubhal 05:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Photographing black cats is difficult; I know from experience. Here you can see almost no difference between the animal's snout and chest. The sharpness should also be better. For me the photo is not a quality image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: Underexposure  Underexposed and insufficient DoF --F. Riedelio 06:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment The cat has sharp eyes, and in most cases I've seen here, that was sufficient for a QI. --Jakubhal 19:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per F. Riedelio --Plozessor 06:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment @Spurzem: @F. Riedelio: @Plozessor: - I brightened the photo Jakubhal 19:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 08:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Government_office_in_The_Hague_housing_the_Dutch_Ministry_of_Justice_and_Security_(2019).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Government office housing the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security, The Hague, Netherlands --S. Perquin 18:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Unsharp, sorry. --Kallerna 11:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Picture is sharp enough. Great composition too. --Nacaru 08:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Picture is sharp, but overexposed a bit. Maybe lights correction can help? Красный 22:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Great composition and lighting, good quality for a smartphone, can't see any overexposed areas --Julesvernex2 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks like the lens is a little foggy in the middle. --Milseburg 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Škoda_Superb_IV_Combi_IMG_9982.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Škoda Superb IV Combi in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 16:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the reflections in the windshield at all. In addition, the car is very crowded and the cut is unnecessarily narrow. Please discuss whether this photo is really a QI. -- Spurzem 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 12:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support shiny objects reflect lights. That's not a photographic defect. One could argue that the crop is quite narrow, but that's still a matter of taste. Overall good quality. --MB-one 08:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. --Plozessor 04:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 08:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)