Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 10 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:At_At_Santa_Cruz_de_Tenerife_2023_083.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Monumento a García Sanabria --Mike Peel 11:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 18:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It also needs a perspective correction --Michielverbeek 19:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It looks better, so I retire my objection. However space in top is very small and it's also a bit noisy --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 10:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

File:At_At_Santa_Cruz_de_Tenerife_2023_085.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Monumento a García Sanabria --Mike Peel 11:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 18:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It needs a perspective correction, background at the left is far from straight --Michielverbeek 19:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It looks better, but it is not straight enough to get my support --Michielverbeek 06:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 10:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Alcazaba_de_Almería_2022_026.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Entrance to Alcazaba de Almería --Mike Peel 07:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 09:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the sky seems to be too dark for this period of the day. --Tournasol7 19:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    • @Tournasol7: Sky lightened, does that look better now? Thanks. Mike Peel 11:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me.--Der Angemeldete 14:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me --LexKurochkin 20:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Fuente_Mayor,_Perugia,_Italia,_2022-09-20,_DD_25.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fontana Maggiore, Perugia, Italy --Poco a poco 10:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 09:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Due to the vertical tilt of the camera the main object (fontana m.) is vertically distorted. --Augustgeyler 11:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMHO a harsh review, hardly noticeable. Anyways, I've uploaded a new version with more perspective correction and also some aspect ratio adjustment to compensate it. Poco a poco 18:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    •  Neutral Switching to neutral.  Thank you. I did not want to be harsh. You improved the perspective. It is now technically perfect. But I now see why I sill can't support this nomination: The high up angle of view makes a nice composition with the background, but might not be suitable for showing the fountain. In addition the main object is in shadow. --Augustgeyler 09:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 10:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Alcazaba_de_Almería_2022_025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Entrance to Alcazaba de Almería --Mike Peel 07:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed IMO. --Draceane 12:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    •  Weak support Fixed now. I agree with Augustgeyler (the perspective isn't ideal here, but IMO it's the only way how to capture this view). --Draceane 09:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Good enough IMO --LexKurochkin 17:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment I never had a chance to see it my own eyes, but as far as I understand the case there is just no chance to set camera at some place suitable for "QI standard" image. From this angle, yes, we have visible perspective inconsistences to the standard, but correcting them to vertical verticals and so on would make the image worse. I think, that rather complex case was handled in a good way. -- LexKurochkin 14:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It need the perspective correction and is too dark. Tournasol7 19:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    • @Draceane and Tournasol7: Brightened. Trying to correct the perspective from this angle doesn't work well. Thanks. Mike Peel 11:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me, the composition of brightness and sharpness of the object fits together in a quite interesting way. However, the perspective is odd, unfortunately.--Der Angemeldete 14:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Reviewing this nomination under my private criteria I really love this composition and especially the angle of view. But this eventually might not be the case for our QI criteria. On the other hand QI standards are telling that we can make exceptions for the vertical perspective rules. I think this is worth making such an exception. --Augustgeyler 09:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 10:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)