Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 22 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Kühlungsborn,_Buhne_--_2024_--_4840.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Groynes on the coast in Kühlungsborn, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany --XRay 02:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient DoF, very little in focus. --Tagooty 03:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your review. IMO the DoF is good for the effect. --XRay 08:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI imo. I like the small dof here. --ArildV 13:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per ArildV. Ich wäre vll sogar noch etwas näher rangegangen an diese Seepocken oder was das da ist. --Smial 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 19:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Martin_church_in_Znin_(7).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Martin church in Znin, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voiv., Poland. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 08:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose A nice and wide composition. But I think there was too much PC involved here. This results in an unrealistic reproduction of the proportions (see this as reference). Additionally the right building is leaning out. --Augustgeyler 10:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It needs to be discussed. --Sebring12Hrs 10:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The unnatural curve of the church as it appears in the picture does not correspond to reality. See the view in Google Maps. -- Spurzem 12:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The church is surely not curved in reality. If this is a panorama, should use a different projection. If it was a single shot with a wide-angle lens, it can probably be fixed with Photoshop "Spherize" function, lens corrections during raw conversion, or similar. --Plozessor 03:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, unrealistic geometry. --Benjism89 20:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 21:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Oxford_2024_038.jpg

[edit]

  •  Weak oppose Perspective and exposure improved. Sharpness remains borderline. --Augustgeyler 19:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 10:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    • @Augustgeyler and Sebring12Hrs: Perspective redone, sharpened, plus a few other tweaks while I was at it. How does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
      •  Support Sharpness is not the best, but ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 17:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Still a bit dark, and at the top strongly distorted due perspective correction, but overall OK IMO. --Plozessor 03:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 19:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Krems_ad_Donau_Jahn-Denkmal_Stadtpark-8693.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Monument to Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, city park of Krems an der Donau, Lower Austria --Isiwal 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has perspective distortion and looks slighty tilted cw. --Augustgeyler 04:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 19:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Antigua_ciudad_de_Herculano,_Italia,_2023-03-27,_DD_77-79_HDR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Antigua ciudad de Herculano, Italia, 2023-03-27 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 00:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 00:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose defects near the hole in the roof. --Kallerna 10:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Temp  Oppose. This is a scene with a very high subject contrast, which was actually handled quite well as far as the interior is concerned. But since there are no hard shadows cast by direct sunlight, I have to assume that the slightly cloudy sky is the actual light source. And I'm always confused when it appears darker than the illuminated parts of the subject. At first glance, the openings in the roof look as if they were covered with dark-tinted glass. In contrast, the greenery on the right in the background is a little overexposed. Fixable? Wide angle perspective is imo acceptable. --Smial 12:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Works for me. --Benjism89 21:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 21:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Снегопад_над_озером_Каинды.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Snowfall over Kaindy Lake, Kolsay Lakes national park, Kazakhstan. By User:MariSimonova --Екатерина Борисова 02:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 08:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shot with a camera, capable of 46,9 megapixel, this image has only 2,7 megapixel. This image must have been scaled down or heavily cropped. --Augustgeyler 04:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment probably taken over the lake, therefore certainly a section --Georgfotoart 12:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler because it's a landscape photo.--Peulle 08:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support It seems to comply with QI guidelines, also I really like the composition. Resolution is low but still meeting the standards. --Plozessor 04:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 17:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice motif, but regardless of whether it is a single shot or a stitched panorama, a landscape photo today should have at least 2000 pixels on the narrow side of the image. --Smial 12:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 19:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Swindon_Steam_Railway_Museum_2024_252.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination GWR 7800 Class 7821 Ditcheat Manor on display in Designer Outlet Swindon, next to Swindon Steam Railway Museum --Mike Peel 05:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burned out highlights at the roof. --Augustgeyler 08:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: Difficult to avoid with the roof windows. I've uploaded a new version that reduces the impact, if that helps. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I think this information unfortunately is simply lost. --Augustgeyler 22:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Better quality now. XtraJovial 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The burned highlights aren't really a problem here as they don't concern the subject of this photograph, and they are often quite unavoidable in interiors with transparent roof such as this one --Benjism89 21:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)