Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 29 2018

Consensual review edit

File:Walhalla-Memorial_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The Walhalla is a hall of fame that honors laudable and distinguished people in German history --SimonWaldherr 20:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment I think you put too much contrast. As a result, the forest is really fark and the sky too blue, it doesn't look real. Is it fixable? --Podzemnik 02:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I took the raw image and highlighted the darker areas - it's taken in the evening, so it is partially dark. --SimonWaldherr 13:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lack of detail, sky too noisy, oversharpened (only the last two IMO fixable). --Basotxerri 12:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I have to agree: Parts of this look more like an illustration than a photograph. -- Ikan Kekek 09:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noise, posterized sky, tilt. The image is not really bad, but I believe we should not decrease QI standards only because the image is taken by a drone. A similar shot from a compact camera or a smart phone would be declined too. --Smial 10:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as Smial. Ist halt ein Winzobjektiv einer Drohne. --Ralf Roletschek 10:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Billy69150 10:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Kassari_merepõhi_2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Kassari seafloor. By User:Hiiumaamudeliklubi ... Kruusamägi 15:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose The image has been downsized. --Peulle 15:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The size is decent and the quality is ok IMO, especially for aerial photos. --Christian Ferrer 17:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment As I said in the other nom, the guidelines say that "Images should not be downsampled" and there is no need to downsize an image like this one.--Peulle 12:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  Comment Aerial photography often suffers from vibration, so some reasonable downsizing should be allowed. You can not expect 36-Mpixel-sharpness and detail similar to stills taken with the camera mounted on a rock stable tripod. But I believe somewhat more than five MPixels should be possible. -- Smial 10:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'll look if I can get something done about that. Kruusamägi 11:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support size and quality are ok. --Ralf Roletschek 10:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Billy69150 10:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)