Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 14 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Church_of_Our_Lady_of_Consolation_in_Guimaraes_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church of Our Lady of Consolation in Guimarães, Portugal. --Tournasol7 06:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The building on the right and the street sign are very disturbing --Moroder 11:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but isn't good enough for QI? --Tournasol7 12:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI. --King of Hearts 22:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI. --Aristeas 08:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Bonsecours_Basilique_Notre-Dame_de_Bonsecours_Fassade_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Facade of the Basilica of Our Lady, Bonsecours, Department of Seine-Maritime, Region of Normandy (former Upper Normandy), France --Zairon 17:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 01:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO a small perspective correction is necessary, but the top crop is too narrow for it --Michielverbeek 03:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
     Comment Just as a hint: The tight top crop may make it a bit more difficult to fix the perspective, but using the right software and approach, it is no problem to fix the perspective.
  •  Oppose Yes, it need verticals fix --Wilfredor 19:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until the perspective is fixed. --Aristeas (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Davidson_Penland_House,_Galveston.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination This Galveston home is an official Texas historical landmark -- Jim Evans 12:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, very good perspectives Sebring12Hrs 15:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI disagree, sky is overexposed. --Jacek Halicki 21:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - The whites of the building next door look blown and the clouds seem a bit overexposed, but it doesn't seem drastic to me, and the subject is the building, which is well photographed. So I feel like it's good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 14:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment some processing on the sky would make it acceptable. Seven Pandas 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Sky is extremely unnatural looking; I've no idea whether it was added later (i.e. not part of original photo as in this example) or is just heavily retouched and overexposed in first place (clipping of blue channel would explain the colour shift towards cyan). Blurring elsewhere may serve a purpose but it doesn't look good. --Ubcule 13:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ubcule. --Smial 13:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment As of 22:08 on 9 May, uploader has reverted to earlier version that's far less obviously overprocessed. This is preferable- as the attempted fixes just made things worse- but the image still suffers from unfixable overexposure that means it will never be up to "quality image" standards. I appreciate- and respect- the fact that exposure was made for the shadows so detail and noise on in-shadow subject itself would be acceptable, and it's a reasonable image. But it's not that good- sorry. Ubcule (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - There's magenta CA below the roof on the left side of the house in this version. -- Ikan Kekek 04:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)