Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 24 2022

Consensual review

edit

File:Πύλος_4946.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination The harbour of Pylos, Greece. --C messier 10:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Support Good quality. --Tagooty 11:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
      Oppose The choice of an 8-mm focal length lens setting is creating too much distortion for QI. You can try fixing it in post-processing. --GRDN711 13:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
    I don't see any noteworthy distortion. Move to discuss. --C messier 20:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. There is a little CA of the yellow-blue type. If that were corrected, the edge sharpness could also improve a bit. The slight image noise is acceptable and does not bother much. I don't see a really relevant perspective problem. Nice colours and lighting.--Smial 09:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Indeed the ship looks a bit distorted but not so much that we must decline. Alltogether I see an attractive photo, sharp and with beautiful colors. -- Spurzem 13:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, the distortion on the ship is just slight. Nacaru 15:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Opel_Astra_L_1X7A0351.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Opel Astra L in Leinfelden.--Alexander-93 15:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Please no offense. But I can only wonder that such a photo should be a QI. -- Spurzem 09:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 18:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Clarification: when I supported, Spurzem was commenting not opposing, and I don't think they gave a valid reason. This looks good to me. Thanks. Mike Peel 05:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I think we should discuss. -- Spurzem 11:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Spurzem. Lots of tangled reflections that make the actual body shape almost unrecognizable. High resolution and good sharpness alone are not enough for QI. --Smial 09:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Trollius chinensis 'Golden Queen' Blüte offen stacking-20220612-RM-170345.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Trollius europaeus flower --Ermell 07:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Wikibusters 08:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now. This does not look like Trollius europaeus unless this is a very odd mutant or cultivar. Please explain. And it is certainly not Lysimachia punctata (category!). Sorry --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)}
  •   Comment Trollius chinensis might look similar, at least according to the images on Commons.--Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    I bought this plant as "Trollblume". So it is cultivar. --Ermell 19:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Info@Robert Flogaus-Faust: I changed the name and the categrory. Thanks for your efford finding the right species. --Ermell 20:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Another possible FP. -- Ikan Kekek 00:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Gaddi_artisans_at_Suraj_Kund_fest.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Gaddi artisans byRodrick rajive lal --UnpetitproleX 19:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support QI for me. --C messier 16:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think there's too much noise and not enough detail. Let's see what others say.--Peulle 20:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good. --Yann 12:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • {{o}} CA, oversaturated, destructive noise reduction. --Smial 14:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Reduced saturation and removed colour noise. --UnpetitproleX 21:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. I'm still not that happy with the result, also because of the overexposed sheep in the background, which I forgot to mention in my first comment. But the main subject looks much better now. --Smial 10:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Gut und Boese, Floersheim am Main (IMG 1214).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination: Stone sculpture "Gut und Böse" (Good and Evil), Flörsheim --MB-one 14:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Oppose Lighting seems a bit off --Aismallard 22:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Temp   Oppose. The panel describing the object is a bit overexposed. Also there is some CA. If this can be fixed, I would give a pro, even if the lighting is not quite optimal. Bonus points if the areas in shadow were carefully lightened slightly. --Smial 07:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support With no positive votes, why was this in CR? That said, it looks OK to me. The CA is pretty minimal. -- Ikan Kekek 15:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support by Ikan Kekek --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)