Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 24 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_152.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Morris 8 at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 08:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Slightly over-exposed. Image is considerably lighter compared to the others. ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Like the others in the same series, the picture also has an unsightly yellow tint. -- Spurzem 13:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Brightness and WB tweaked, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It does, thank you ReneeWrites 19:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Changed to CR because Spurzem was commenting first. --Augustgeyler 22:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The first comment was mine, and the edit adjusted the white balance in addition to the exposure. ReneeWrites 08:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 12:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Frager_Road_facing_north_in_Kent,_Washington_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Frager Road facing north in Kent, Washington --Roc0ast3r 21:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Well composed! But the image looks over-sharpened, was intensely de-noised and lacks detail. --Augustgeyler 23:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Unsure what detail this image lacks that it should have. ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Texture got lost due to de-noising. --Augustgeyler 14:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, see the wires. --Plozessor 08:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks details. Tournasol7 19:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --August (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Batterij_8,_Drimmelen_voorkant.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Municipal monument and house at Batterij 8 in Drimmelen --ReneeWrites 14:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Low level of detail --Poco a poco 16:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't understand what's wrong with this image. Level of detail is nornal IMO --Екатерина Борисова 01:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Purple CAs at full size. --Sebring12Hrs 08:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. Overall very low level of detail to to strong processing and / or compression. Contrasty parts show compression artifacts. Additionally chromatic aberration at the darker parts.
  •  Oppose I am sorry, that was me. So repeating my vote and signing here. --Augustgeyler 19:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Correct exposure and good composition. But again a tough battle between noise reduction, sharpening and JPG compression. I once used a Samsung compact camera myself, which was even worse in this regard, but I would have thought after more than 15 years of technical advancement, a little more progress would have been possible. Sony or Apple phones, for example, and perhaps others, even correct the CA automatically these days... --Smial 11:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Purple CA and some weird structure above the right chimney (which does not look like smoke to me). In general a heavily processed smartphone picture, with the CA fixed probably just about acceptable. --Plozessor 04:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 05:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_146.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination MG TC at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 07:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 08:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think that it is already a QI. In my opinion the the strong yellow component should be reduced. In addition, the two men appear slightly overexposed. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    • WB and brightness tweaked, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good (now). --Plozessor 04:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 12:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Union_Station_Toronto_August_2017_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Union Station, Toronto. --ArildV 06:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 19:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The upper part is unsharp. And the sideways slipped angle is not good. --Augustgeyler 22:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for reviews. I uploaded a entirely new development.--ArildV 08:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It did improve. Looks better. I just think the angle is not good. The station should have been taken 90° above and not at 80° from the side. Let's see what others think. --Augustgeyler 08:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment You are asking for something that is not possible, unless you move the station or the CN tower. It's good technical quality, it's the best angle you can get and the angle isn't bad. Clearly enough for QI imo.--ArildV 08:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Oh that's a point. I did not notice it was taken from a tower. Thought it was shot from the air. --August (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 12:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Knowsley_Safari_Park_2006_174.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kobus leche in Knowsley Safari Park --Mike Peel 09:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Some chroma noise in the background. Otherwise good --MB-one 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Noise reduced, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality now --MB-one 21:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad composition and crop. The outer left thing should coped out at least. But additionally it is not good seeing the other animal at the right cropped through its eyes. --Augustgeyler 22:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Left bit should be cropped a bit but I don't mind the other animal being there. You get two for the price of one! ReneeWrites 11:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Cropped, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 16:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It did improve the composition. Changing to neutral. --Augustgeyler 08:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It does, thank you. ReneeWrites 08:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --August (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

File:BMW_G06_M60i_IMG_9119.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination BMW X6 M60i in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 12:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Very noisy. Otherwise good --MB-one 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the review, I uploaded a new version.--Alexander-93 16:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Much butter --MB-one 12:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think there is still too much chroma noise. --Augustgeyler 23:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Plozessor 14:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --August (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)