Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 14 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Volmerange-les-Mines, l'église Saint-Denis IMG 6067 2023-05-14 11.40.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Volmerange-les-Mines in France, church: l'église Saint-Denis --Michielverbeek 03:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality,--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the sky is too noisy... Tournasol7 04:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky is too noisy and the roofs are out of focus --LexKurochkin 06:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Yes, some noise in the sky, but still good enough for an A4 size print. --Smial 09:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial, it's acceptable. --Sebring12Hrs 17:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Good lighting, good colors, good composition, but the sharpness of the roofs could be a bit better. -- Spurzem 17:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Kia_EV6_GT_IMG_8180.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kia EV6 GT in Esslingen.--Alexander-93 17:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 18:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Very unfavorable incidence of light; this makes the windshield and bonnet far too bright. Apart from that, the environment is unfavorable for a QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. Burnt highlights, messy surroundings/background. --Smial 10:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have a fair degree of tolerance for backgrounds in car pictures, but this one is just too distracting to me. -- Ikan Kekek 10:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it only affects the windscreen. --多多123 多多123 16:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)~
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Осінні_контрасти_в_горах.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination protected area in Ukraine By User:Ryzhkov Oleksandr --Luda.slominska 12:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Lens flare, fixable? --F. Riedelio 09:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support For me the lens flare is part of the composition and rounds off the picture, good quality. --Аныл Озташ 15:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per F. Riedelio. As part of the composition not working for me. --Milseburg 16:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lens flare and looks oversaturated to me. --LexKurochkin 06:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Not a style that's much appreciated on this site. Some other sites might appreciate it more, and many movies use this kind of shot. -- Ikan Kekek 10:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Corvus_frugilegus,_Kraków,_20230225_0900_2882.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rook (Corvus frugilegus) on a tree in Krakow --Jakubhal 03:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Lacking detail in the underparts. Raise level of the shadows? --Tagooty 04:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
    •  Info Lightened up a bit, but it won't change the fact that the bird's belly is just in shadow. I'd like to check other reviews to see if even lighting on the subject is really necessary for QI --Jakubhal 04:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
      • I've struck my oppose. --Tagooty 09:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment IMO shadows on the belly and some other parts are too dark. Is it fixable? --LexKurochkin 10:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
        • No, if I brighten the shadows of the belly, it would become quite noisy in comparison with the rest of the picture. As nobody supports this image so far as it is, I withdraw. Thank you both for the review --Jakubhal 15:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support good sharpness, very good composition, natural lighting. --Smial 16:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial--Luda.slominska 19:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo per others. -- Ikan Kekek 10:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Tram_5005_in_Basil.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tram 5005 in Bern --WikiEuropian 14:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Current collector and end of tram not visible --Conny Duck 17:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. If the end of the train were in the picture, there would probably be criticism that it would be too small to see. Sometimes I am amazed at the arguments. For me the picture is okay. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support as per Spurzem --Isiwal 07:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Wide angle lens is not the best choice for such subjects, and the crop at the left is a bit tight, but sharpness and lighting are good. --Smial 10:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. I'm fine with the end of the tram not being visible, as that emphasizes its length, but there is dark blue COM:CA in the wires on the left that should be corrected before we promote this picture. -- Ikan Kekek 10:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Ok now? Thank you --WikiEuropian 12:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, unless the rainbow shadows toward the upper left are also CA. -- Ikan Kekek 20:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Empfangsgebaeude-Bahnhof-Pfronten-Ried-2023_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Station building at railway station Pfronten-Ried --Tuxyso 07:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Very crooked. I have the feeling that a correction of the perspective has gone wrong. In my opinion it is not a quality picture. please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support don't see any problems here. --MB-one 12:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It is difficult to judge whether a barrel distortion has been overcompensated or the verticalisation has been exaggerated a tiny bit, or whether both have been combined. For me, the problem is too minor for a rejection, but on the other hand it is not enough for a "pro" either. --Smial 12:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment. The picture reminds me of Peter Alexander's song Das ganze Haus ist schief (The whole house is crooked) from the 1957 film Liebe, Jazz und Übermut. -- Spurzem 18:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Ich kann dein Unbehagen nachvollziehen. Aber in der Vergangenheit hat sich hier halt die Zwangsvertikalisierung durchgesetzt, egal, wie übertrieben es wirkt. Freilich gibt es m.E. auf commons zahllose deutlich schlimmere Beispiele als dieses Bild, das wohl mit kleinen Korrekturen durchaus zu retten wäre. Ultraweitwinkel hätten niemals erfunden werden dürfen ;-) --Smial 21:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)