Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 02 2022

Consensual review edit

File:2014_04_19_Koelner_Dom.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sunset at Cologne Cathedral with Hohenzollern Bridge
    --F. Riedelio 07:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Per se ineligible for consideration because it's well under 2 megapixels. -- Ikan Kekek 08:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    New version with increased size uploaded. --F. Riedelio 10:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Lots of chromatic aberration and noise. You just upsampled it? -- Ikan Kekek 07:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Version with increased size is too noisy, original didn't meet size requirements. --aismallard (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really like the idea of making a silhouette style image of this subject. But the sun was still way too high, the colors look strange (WB shifted towards "warm"?) and the camera was overwhelmed by the extreme contrast. So the sky is unfortunately too noisy and the tonal gradations are very coarse. --Smial 11:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 14:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Fioritura_di_margherite.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Flowering of daisies--propoli87 19:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now (beautiful, but misidentified); this is some kind of Bellis, possibly B. perennis. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mediocre sharpness, noise, some flowers have chromatic aberration. -- Ikan Kekek 22:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMO wrong category, perhaps Bellis perennis (habitat). --F. Riedelio 09:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Commentyes, declinePROPOLI87 13:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 13:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 07:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Casio_fx-85GT_PLUS_Scan_20220323.png edit

 

  • Nomination A calculator in blue. --PantheraLeo1359531 18:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Oppose not enough sharp for a studio shot and brights ruins the image --Ezarate 23:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
      Support The resolution is remarkable --Ermell 22:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
      Support IMO it is sharp enough for QI.--IamMM (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    Strong   Support per Ermell. Ezarate, did you consider the resolution when voting and posting your comment? -- Ikan Kekek 05:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
      SupportWow good. --Sebring12Hrs 07:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Many pixels, but unsatisfactory lighting with crossed shadows and the cropping from the background is inaccurate. Also burnt highlights/reflections. --Smial 22:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose poor cropping of background. Charlesjsharp 18:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Question Seriously? Are you complaining about tiny things visible when pixel-peeping, and you'd decline the photo on that basis? -- Ikan Kekek 19:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  Comment A photo offered at such high resolution is clearly not intended to be displayed at postcard size. At a moderate 150dpi, this image can be printed two metres high. The error in craftsmanship then becomes clearly visible. This has nothing to do with PixelPeeping, I noticed even at normal viewing size that the roundish case seemed somehow angular. Of course, one then looks at it more closely so as not to make a false judgement. --Smial 09:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  •   Oppose bad light, unnecessary resolution. --Kallerna 12:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oops my mistake, didn't realise the voting period was over. --Kallerna 10:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO good enough. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support With declining this we only force uploads with lower resolution. --Stepro 23:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  Comment This means that poorly lit and edited images are QI if they only have enough pixels? --Smial 08:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

*  Oppose unnötig groß wegen ungeeignetem Format --Ralf Roletschek 08:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Vote stricken. This nomination is closed. No further votes will be recorded.--Peulle 14:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 07:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC) (last vote cast on March 29.)