Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 01 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Holy_Family_Shrine_2016.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nebraska's Holy Family Shrine in 2016 --Dmartin969 19:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Strong cw tilt --Poco a poco 19:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice photo. --Wee Hong 05:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still strong tilt visible in thumbnail, Wee Hong, please, do not ignore other reviews --Poco a poco 19:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Colleagues, as there are two different reviews, I set it to discussion --LexKurochkin 10:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose And visible digital artefacts on the sky --LexKurochkin 08:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Hungarian_Parliament_Building_4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hungarian Parliament Building, Budapest. --Kallerna 13:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 18:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Perspectif is not good. --Jmh2o 18:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment see comment of Julesvernex2. --Jmh2o 08:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Effective perspective to show both the Parliament and Gyula Andrássy's statue. A centered composition would have the latter blocking the former's entrance --Julesvernex2 07:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Very good composition. But very minor perspective distortion are visible. --Augustgeyler 08:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 10:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Honing schimmel Locatie, Paddenstoelenreservaat. 31-10-2022. (actm.) 03.jpg

[edit]

  •  Support Good photo. Now that the mushroom is identified, the "unidentified fungi" category should be deleted and a specific category should be added. -- Ikan Kekek 18:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Achyutaraya_Temple_-_Door_of_Shrine.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Achyutaraya Temple / Hampi, Karnataka - Door of Shrine --Imehling 06:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 23:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots at the sky should be removed. --Augustgeyler 03:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry, I cannot see any dust spots. Good quality. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust: I disagree and annotated all four Dust spots I found. --Augustgeyler 18:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
      • O.k., thanks a lot! I can see some of these spots now, even though I am not sure what caused them. I am most concerned about #1 and #3. I removed my vote for now. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I've uploaded a new version. The spots are caused by dust on the image sensor. Unfortunately I didn't clean it often enough. --Imehling 07:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo. -- Ikan Kekek 18:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo --LexKurochkin 08:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Empress_of_Canada_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Empress of Canada --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree . Too narrow crop. Disturbing element in the upper right part. No QI for me. --Milseburg 11:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment As the crop doesn't leave out any important details about the picture, IMO it should be fine as QI. Also, I wanted to take a better frame but it's best I got because of it's position and surroundings.--Fabian Roudra Baroi 05:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image as cropped does not show ship well, nor is there a focus on detail. --GRDN711 23:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose That's definitly a very tight crop and unnecessary tight in my opinion. Was bothers me more: there are three blurry round spots on the two buildings on the left looking somehow like small magnifying glasses...are thy removable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown (talk • contribs) 29 March 2023 (UTC0)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --August Geyler (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

File:La_búsqueda,_Parque_Bicentenario,_Vitacura,_Santiago_20200314_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination La búsqueda, Parque Bicentenario, Vitacura, Santiago, Región Metropolitana, Chile --Carlos yo 22:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Every part of the vegatation behind the nearest foreground is unsharp or motion blured. The left building is unsharp as well. --Augustgeyler 22:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
    • I think you review another picture. --Carlos yo 00:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
    •  Support Oh yes I did! I'm sorry. Can't believe that this happened. --August Geyler (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but there is another problem. The top part is out of focus (the spyglasses, the helms) --LexKurochkin 11:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. As far as I know, the voting here is not about "super excellent plus", but about quality pictures. The sharpness of the photo presented here is good, the exposure impeccable and above all the composition is very good. That's why I give my "pro" for the picture. -- Spurzem 21:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Somewhat low DOF, but considering the image resolution, the photo is more than good enough to be printed in A4 size. --Smial 12:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • DoF could be better and parts are not crispy sharp but  Support per Smial and Spurzem. --GRDN711 23:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I also don't like the vegetation in this picture. I guess the strange focus comes from the odd perspective but as this was a composition decision (a very ugly decision btw.), it should be expectable from thins angle. I'd rather stay neutral on this one.--Der Angemeldete 08:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Mike Peel 19:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Nyctiprogne_leucopyga_Band-tailed_Nighthawk;_Arari,_Maranhão,_Brazil.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nyctiprogne leucopyga perched close at Arari, Maranhão --Hector Bottai 12:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Charlesjsharp 13:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry branches spoling the composition. --Der Angemeldete 15:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Exposure, lighting, colours, and composition are very appealing, on the other hand the image resolution only very slightly exceeds the absolute minimum and the detail resolution and sharpness is not optimal. At least a print in A4 size is still just acceptable.
  •  Comment I agree that the branches right and left look like ugly erasures, the bird's resolution is not high, and its sharpness is marginal. But my question is, since this bird is mostly nocturnal, is it very hard to shoot a decent photo of it? -- Ikan Kekek 23:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Extreme crop led to low level of detail. --Augustgeyler 10:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Despite questionable level of detail, good enough for A4 print IMO. --LexKurochkin 11:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The details and resolution are too low. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 05:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me.--Ermell 08:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the level of detail is too small for such a small image, especially considering the camera. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO too many technical flaws per Robert Flogaus-Faust and others for QI, but would support for VI. --GRDN711 23:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 09:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)