Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 11 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:February_1,_2023_-_Seattle_-_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Canton Alley, Seattle --Another Believer 04:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Good quality --Llez 07:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree, it needs the perspective correction. --Tournasol7 18:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Tournasol7. -Sebring12Hrs 21:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 Comment It looks good apart from the perspective. A simple fix @Another Believer: ? Thanks. Mike Peel 23:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Beijing_(November_2016)_-_377.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hall of Preserving Harmony (Forbidden City), Beijing, China --Another Believer 05:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 11:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose The top crop is not good, low level of detail, some PC required --Poco a poco 12:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
     Comment Even though User:Poco a poco did not add a vote, this should go to CR. Resetting the image to "/Nomination" is not appropriate. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Alright, I added an assumed opposing vote anyway. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I put it back to "Nomination" on purpose with the hope that the issue had an easy fix. My thinking was trying to avoid too much stuff here on CR as it requires many ressources from reviewers Poco a poco 11:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your idea, but then you should be fairly certain that the issues can and will be fixed within a day or two. A low level of detail might not be fixable, unless it is the result of an excessive noise filter in image post-processing. Anyway, sending an image with a supporting vote to CR if issues are found (or ignored by someone casting a supporting vote) is the standard procedure AFAIK. In this case, nothing has happened for a too long time, almost for a week now. Some images get lost after being reset to nomination and get removed as inconclusive even though there is only a single supporting vote. In my opinion, this should not happen. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit soft, JPG artifacts, CA, perspective problems and actually no usable image description at all. --Smial 11:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 07:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not sharp. Thanks. Mike Peel 23:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)