Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 01 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Monument_aux_morts_des_Première_et_Seconde_Guerres_mondiales_(Muntzenheim).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Monument to the fallen of the First and Second World Wars in Muntzenheim (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 06:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 07:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is  Underexposed. I suggest correcting this --Augustgeyler 07:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Neutral Switching to neutral. New version is better. --Augustgeyler 05:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 06:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Monument_aux_morts_des_Première_et_Seconde_Guerres_mondiales_(Wickerschwihr).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Monument to the fallen of the First and Second World Wars in Wickerschwihr (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 06:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 07:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is slightly  Underexposed and should be corrected. --Augustgeyler 07:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Support You uploaded a new version with good exposure correction --August Geyler (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Église_protestante_(Bischwihr).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Protestant church of Bischwihr (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 06:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 07:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image looks slightly  Underexposed. --Augustgeyler 07:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Gzen92 08:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now. --Augustgeyler 10:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 18:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

File:En_Ooru_-_Chembra_Peak_View.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View on Chembra Peak from En Ooru Tribal Heritage Village / Wayanad, Kerala --Imehling 09:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose some areas are blurry --Modern primat 21:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment Well, I think it's misty but not blurry. --Imehling 16:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I think the sharpness is fine. I see some dust spots, though. Could you do a sweep and clone those out?--Peulle 10:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I hope I've found all of them --Imehling 15:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, I think so.--Peulle 06:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and nice photo, but could you add additional appropriate categories? -- Ikan Kekek 06:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Ok --Imehling 06:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 18:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Kolskaya-sverhglubokaya-018.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Abandoned workshop building of the Kola Superdeep Borehole. --Alexander Novikov 20:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Imehling 18:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The image looks  Overprocessed and lacks detail. Shadows are unrealistically light. If this was intended to be an HDR it should be mentioned in the description. --Augustgeyler 07:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support It may be that the sky has been slightly over-processed and darkened, but I think it's still within the acceptable range and doesn't look completely unnatural. At least there is no strange halo effect. I don't see a lack of sharpness either. Good enough for an A4 printout. --Smial 09:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good photo, but the grays in the sky look purplish to me. Is that how the sky looked to you, Alexander? -- Ikan Kekek 06:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 18:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Starorusskaya_Street_SPB_(img1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Starorusskaya Street (Crossing with Novgorodskaya and 8th Sovietskaya Street) in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 13:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • { Oppose The picture looks oversaturated and lacks details (which is unfortunately typical for smartphone photos) --Imehling 16:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment Nope. You're absolutely wrong. --Florstein 16:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well the composition is good. But I have to vote with Imehling according to loss of detail. Additionally the WB seems a bit off and the histogram is unbalanced resulting in unrealistic low contrast at the darker areas. Is there any non-standard colour model used without mentioning in the description? --Augustgeyler 13:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for an A4-Print. There's clearly some HDR processing going on to compensate for too dark shadow areas. There are also the typical artifacts where noise reduction and post sharpening get in the way. Also, the color saturation seems a bit too high to me. But all together, I think it's still well within QIC requirements, nothing that would really warrant rejection. We should accept that mobile phones deliver acceptable pictures in good lighting nowadays, even if they usually come across a bit too colorful, following today's public taste. --Smial 11:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: When I downloaded the first version, I already had another one ready. In case the first one (obviously) won't be promoted. Now I have uploaded it. Take a look, please. --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Neutral  Thank you. It did improve. The image has now balanced contrast, more realistic WB and the verticals are corrected. I switch to neutral, because the lens distortion combined with the intensively necessary vertical corrections are still giving a too artificial impression of the geometries of these buildings. It's just to tricky for me to make a clear decision now. But let's see what others say… . --Augustgeyler 19:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Smial: Thanx for review! But please take a look at the new version. Maybe you'll like it more (or less) --Florstein 18:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Colours look much better, thx for rework. --Smial 09:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. BigDom 11:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Better now --Imehling 17:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 06:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Gent_skyline_from_Kuiperskaai,_Sep_2022.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Skyline of Gent city centre as seen from Kuiperskaai. --BigDom 19:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Very good composition, but I think it lacks sharpness. --Augustgeyler 20:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment That's fair. I think the combination of 15-year-old camera and kit zoom probably doesn't produce results up to modern standards. Thanks for taking a look! --BigDom 07:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Meets the QI standards I think. --Milseburg 13:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Not sharp enough. Level of detail too low. --Augustgeyler 22:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly underexposed but good enough.--Ermell 06:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Milseburg. --Smial 09:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 07:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 01:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support -- Spurzem 20:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support per Ermell. --LexKurochkin 08:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 18:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)