Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 05 2025

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Volkswagen_Golf_Alltrack_(2020)_DSC_7316.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Volkswagen Golf Alltrack in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 09:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The image is too pale. -- Spurzem 12:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say "decline" or "contra" and I don't know who put it in. My only suggestion was that the photo is too pale. -- Spurzem 14:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 15:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment} As there is one pro and one contra argument I'll move it to the discussion --D-Kuru 21:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Roof rack and chrome strip under the window blown out. Probably fixable with better raw conversion (with lower exposure). --Plozessor 05:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for your reviews, I uploaded a darker version.--Alexander-93 09:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, new version is good IMO. --Plozessor 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

File:View_from_Château_de_Castelnau-Bretenoux_-_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Prudhomat (Lot, France) - View of the northern part of the hamlet of Castelnau from Castelnau-Bretenoux castle --Benjism89 07:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Can you check the perspective, please? In particular the left horizontals aren't flat. --Mike Peel 16:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, horizontals aren't flat, they are leaning in one direction on the left and in the other direction on the right (less visible because it's behind the tree). That's hard to avoid when you have buildings on both sides of a wide angle picture and the façades of those are not parallel to one another, and I don't think it can or needs to be corrected (horizontal PC is necessary IMO only when the picture is centered on the façade on one single building). --Benjism89 13:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I think a correction is needed here, particularly for the left-hand building that seems very tilted in the photograph but presumably isn't so tilted in reality. I'm marking it as oppose for now, feel free to take this to discussion to get other opinions, or I'm happy to look at a new version. Thanks. Mike Peel 21:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree, taking this to CR. Even if horizontal PC was a good idea here, it's impossible because the façade of the building on the left is not parallel (in real life) to the ones of the other buildings. I've verified this on the map : the URL doesn't work on this page but you can get a link to where I was, looking northeast, in the image description. The façade of the Eglise Collégiale Saint-Louis (behind the tree in the photo) clearly isn't parallel to that of the left foreground building. When you take a picture at the corner of two streets, you can't have the horizontals IRL of both façades of the corner building horizontal in your picture, because the two façades are not parallel : same thing here. By the way, it looks like the building on the left doesn't have a regular shape in reality (look at an aerial view), which may confuse you. --Benjism89 10:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because it's too dark, I'd change the gradiation curve to brighten the midtones. Perspective isn't optimal but that's because it was taken from a high angle and still verticals are supposed to be vertical, which can't work better than it was done here. --Plozessor 08:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ Done New version uploaded with brightened midtones. --Benjism89 14:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's a shame I visited this castle this year and it's a very beautiful place ! But verticals should be a bit more... vertical. --Sebring12Hrs 17:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Which ones are not vertical ? --Benjism89 18:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
     Support I can see some walls tilted a bit, but anyway I like this picture. --Sebring12Hrs 06:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me now. As said, a picture from a high angle with 'fixed verticals' will always look a bit distorted. Also in these old buildings there's usually nothing really vertical or horizontal. --Plozessor 05:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I still worry that only one building here actually is horizontal in the photo, every other building seems to be tilted. This doesn't seem natural to me, particularly since the left-hand images are all leaning in the same direction, and the right-hand buildings in the opposite direction, which implies a lens effect. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Saint_Peter_church_in_Sermages_(9).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Peter church in Sermages, Nievre, France. --Tournasol7 06:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 06:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment CAs around roof may be fixable. --Scotch Mist 06:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment What you call CAs is in effect a remnant of its removal. I can't do any better, but it seems to me to be so minor as to be irrelevant to this nomination. --Tournasol7 07:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Imo, good quality  Support --Michielverbeek 07:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Imo, artefact running along top edge of roof (to left of clock) and 'capturing' a pigeon undermines the quality of the image but should be 'fixable'- other artefacts on sky\building interfaces are probably acceptable. --Scotch Mist 07:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed and not too sharp. I guess these 'artefacts' at the edges are results of sharpening or processing. --Plozessor 11:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA revoval artefacts are minor IMO, and sharpness is OK. But this image is underexposed, needs brightening. --Benjism89 18:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Clearly above the QI bar in my eyes. Sharpness and resolution are above average. Exposure is appropriate for the conditions. --Milseburg 18:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Camiseta_Brasil_1962_A74275920241123.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Brazil 1962 T-shirt. --Rjcastillo 02:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Bgag 04:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed, should be brightened / constrast stretched. --Plozessor 05:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks. --Rjcastillo 21:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now, thx. --Plozessor 07:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I removed your opposing vote because you certainly did not try to vote twice. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)