Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 21 2022

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Wawel_Dragon_monument._Krakow,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wawel Dragon monument. Krakow, Poland --Ввласенко 06:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Sorry! In the middle very unsharp. --Steindy 15:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)  Support Okay, now I understand. Therefore quite good. --Steindy 20:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    ✓ Answered This is not an unsharp, but fluctuations of hot air from the dragon's fiery exhalation. -- Ввласенко 20:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ввласенко. -- Ikan Kekek 05:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree, good quality --Matutinho 06:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Calcutta_Boys'_School_Main_Campus_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Calcutta Boys' School Main Campus--Subhrajyoti07 09:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Perspective distortion perspective distortion and chromatic aberration, fixable? --F. Riedelio 06:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
     Comment Fixed - Subhrajyoti07 05:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good quality now. --F. Riedelio 09:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • {{o}} The colors are not realistic at all, and jpeg compression artifacts. --Sebring12Hrs 06:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    *  Support Ok now it is better. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose Agree with Sebring. Colors seem odd and image seeems over sharpened or has compression artifacts. --GRDN711 05:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
     Support now after re-processing. --GRDN711 16:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • {{o}} +1, it's over-saturated --Stepro 01:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    •  Support as per Smial --Stepro 07:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support I don't agree, good quality for me --Matutinho 06:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  • {{o}} Per Stepro and others. --Smial 10:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Re done the processing from scratch from the original RAW. I believe it addresses the issues highlighted.-Subhrajyoti07 16:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    •  Support The current version actually looks much more natural. One could still criticise a green that is possibly a little too intense, but I think that would be nitpicking. To my mind, the new version is now perfectly fine. Thank you for your reworking. -- Smial 23:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)