Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 04 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Crëp_dla_Porta_troi_da_arpizé_Pertini_te_Gherdëina.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Val an Puez national park--Moroder 16:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The framing is good but there is 2 specks of dust in the top left-hand corner and lack of sharpness. --Shougissime 19:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I fixed the dustspots (thanks for the advice), but how can you say that it lacks on sharpness? -- Moroder 08:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, trees, grass, and rocks could be more sharp. There is a little blur, maybe in Lightroom, you can correct that with adding some texture. Maybe I'm too picky. If someone else can give an opinion, it could be nice. --Shougissime 21:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness here, compared to other QI candidates, looks average. For sure, the picture does not need any artificial texture from Lightroom. Good quality --Jakubhal 05:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The sharpness is quite acceptable. If we decline candidates like this, we are really being too demanding. -- Ikan Kekek 18:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 15:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per above. BigDom (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Mike Peel 18:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Schleswig-Holstein,_Itzehoe,_Laurentii-Kirche_NIK_2652.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Impressionen aus dem Inneren der Stadtkirche St. Laurentii in Itzehoe. --Nightflyer 20:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline The perspective and the brightness would have to be corrected. Also, the candles and flowers should have been put away before the picture was taken. -- Spurzem 10:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
     Weak support I think the picture could be sharper and, yes, a little bit brighter, but it is still good enough for a QI. Spurzem's request to redecorate the temple is unfeasible and should not be part of the evaluation. --Jakubhal 03:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed (fixable), lacking sharpness (may not be fixable). --Tagooty 10:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Augustgeyler 06:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 07:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)