Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 04 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Parque_de_Eaton,_Norwich,_Inglaterra,_2022-11-20,_DD_28.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eaton Park, Norwich, England --Poco a poco 09:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Tricky exposure, HDR could help --Gugalcrom123 15:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, I don't know what you talk about, there is no problem here with the exposure, multiple frames not required --Poco a poco 19:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support There is nothing wrong with exposure. HDR is not a requirement for QI, and the light conditions here are not even so extreme that it would benefit from HDR. --Plozessor 05:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 06:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any significant shortage. --Smial 12:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per others --Sandro Halank 21:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --MB-one 08:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Toronto,_November_10,_2023_-_055.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of Elizabeth II (Toronto) --Another Believer 20:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too low level of detail with blurred statue --Jakubhal 05:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I miss no detail and the statue seems sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Whole picture is not sharp, had massive NR applied (see the grass), and the statue is not even full in focus (thus even more blurred than the rest of the picture). Also it would need perspective correction. --Plozessor 11:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Digital zoom led to loss of fine detail. --C messier 20:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enough --Sandro Halank 21:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --MB-one 08:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Opel_Astra_L_PHEV_1X7A1516.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Opel Astra L PHEV in Stuttgart.--Alexander-93 08:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 14:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed in places, especially behind the side window. In my opinion this is not QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Again, the other car is a bit disturbing but it was there. But the blown-out area behind the side window, as mentioned by Spurzem, is definitely an issue (as it's even white and not yellow). If that could be fixed in raw conversion, I would change my vote. --Plozessor 11:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 12:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor --Sandro Halank 20:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --MB-one 08:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Maserati_Quattroporte_VI_Trofeo_1X7A0312.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Maserati Quattroporte VI Trofeo in Böblingen.--Alexander-93 16:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline Unfavorable light, which means the side windows and background are too bright. The dust on the car is also annoying. I would not have presented this photo as a quality image. -- Spurzem 16:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 17:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Please look to my comment above und discuss. -- Spurzem 12:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavorable light, overexposed, and the dirt on the car. --Plozessor 11:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 12:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor --Sandro Halank 20:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --MB-one 08:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)