Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 24 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Holzgeschnitzter_anbetender_Engel_um_1640_Schloss_Velthurns_Südtirol.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Woodcarved polichromed angel around AD 1640 in the castel Velthurns. --Moroder 17:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality.In large screen,several white points due to the reflection of the light source --Celeda 07:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree. You should at least say why --Moroder 20:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality --Robert Flogaus-Faust 06:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Celeda, what are you seeing? This is good at 100% on my 19-inch monitor. -- Ikan Kekek 06:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell 20:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support I am not happy with the somewhat harsh lighting, which actually leads to numerous tiny burnt reflexes. Also, the background seems a little overexposed. But all in all this doesn't disturb the picture so much that one would have to reject it. Sharpness and composition are good, colours seem natural. --Smial 09:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Crëp_dla_Porta_Valacia_Ciastel_de_Stevia_Val_Longia_Gherdëina.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The Crëp dla Porta tower the Valacia valley, the Ci in the Puez-Geisler Nature Park, Dolomites UNESCO World Heritage. --Moroder 08:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose white sky. I know you can't change the color of the sky, but you can accept that this photo is not of great quality.I'm sure you will have sucess with other photos --Celeda 07:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree. If the sky was white, cloudy I cannot change it’s colour! --Moroder 20:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Artefacts in the sky, see especially top left.--Peulle 06:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
      Question @Peulle: Why artefacts? The sky is just a bit darker there --Moroder 09:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I see artefacts. Like when you use a Paint program and select the spraycan tool.--Peulle 12:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 20:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

File:SulzbachM_ND_676.N.75_D.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sulzbach am Main, district Soden, different trees in the park of the former children's home, originally spa gardens, detail, nature monument 676.N.75 --KaiBorgeest 20:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --undefined 16:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the positive vote above is from an IP. Also, in my opinion much of the left part looks overexposed. So let's discuss. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support nothing burned and ok in my eyes.--Ermell 20:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Robert Flogaus-Faust. Many sunlit leaves and some other less important parts are burnt or have colour channel clipping. One half f-stop darker would probably help. --Smial 21:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 20:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Log_Sector,_Cox's_Bazar.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Logistics Sector of WFP, Ukhiya. --RockyMasum 06:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Sky needs denoising and more relevant categories need to be added --MB-one 09:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too much noise in the sky --Sandro Halank 21:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. At normal, usual viewing distance the noise is not disturbing. --Smial 08:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough quality, per Smial. --Kritzolina 09:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I feel that it is a bit too noisy for a mostly fairly static composition. I also feel that there may be additional relevant categories. -- Ikan Kekek 06:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sky is not ok.--Ermell 20:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 20:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Bochnia_Cemetery_Oracka_09.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Kusionowicz Family Tomb with Plaques & Memorial Lamps at Oracka Street Municipal Cemetery in Bochnia --Scotch Mist 05:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Looks too soft for an easy to take picture. Why ISO 400 in the middle of the day? --Podzemnik 20:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Podzemnik: Thanks for review - not quite "middle of the day" as UK camera settings (see lamps\shadows)! --Scotch Mist 05:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    No further comment after 4 days so submitting for other opinions ... --Scotch Mist 05:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Somewhat hard lighting, but good enough. I can't see really disturbing noise. --Smial 14:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Seven Pandas 22:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment It is good and common practice here in CR to give reasons for any rejection. What is yours? --Smial 21:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough, minor noise on the sky, still better than many pictures that get promoted --Jakubhal 06:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I`ts not a big efford to denoise the sky.--Ermell 06:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
      Done @Ermell: Have uploaded new version of image with sky 'de-noised' as suggested --Scotch Mist 09:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support good now.--Ermell 20:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)