Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 14 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Seattle_in_May_2023_-_090.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Seattle Japanese Garden --Another Believer 22:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose   Overprocessed There are artefacts at the sky with very intense saturated blue on the right but very different behind branches. Additionally there was done a very strong noise reduction resulting in low level of detail. --Augustgeyler 01:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support. I see a beautiful garden and a good image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes the garden is beautiful. But this is not about nominating for Quality Garden but Quality Image. --Augustgeyler 17:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Oversharpened and rather low level of detail. --LexKurochkin 09:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed. --Smial 11:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others --Jakubhal 12:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 14:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Seattle_in_May_2023_-_038.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Seattle Japanese Garden --Another Believer 22:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Level of detail is too low here. --Augustgeyler 01:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Week   Support. Indeed we can not count the leafs, but I think that it is QI. Let's here what others say. -- Spurzem 16:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Augustgeyler --LexKurochkin 09:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Augustgeyler --Jakubhal 12:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 14:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Weeze,_Airport_--_2015_--_00993.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Airport, Weeze, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose This is mainly an image of the airport sign, the lightpost in front spoils the sign. --Tagooty 03:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Yes, it is a sign - at night. The darkness around is typical. The lightpost is not important and typical for parking lots. --XRay 04:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It is as it is. We cannot remove a lamppost, and it happens sometimes when a photographer tries to take photo of some large object in urban area, that there is just no place to make a shot without obstacles. On the other hand the left side of the sign looks not really sharp to me. --LexKurochkin 12:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Adequate for a night photo, and the lamppost does not interfere with the words "Airport Weeze," which is the only important part of the sign. -- Ikan Kekek 20:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Kekek. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 14:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Babosa_de_mar_(Felimare_cantabrica),_Parque_natural_de_la_Arrábida,_Portugal,_2022-07-22,_DD_25.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sea slug (Felimare cantabrica), Arrábida National Park, Portugal --Poco a poco 10:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose This one is too blurry. Sorry. --Ermell 22:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • To me it feels like the area in focus (the whole body) is big enough. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 17:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I tried to find out if the focus sits on the body. But I can't say it is there. It looks as if it was just before the main parts of the body. Hopefully some reviewers with more knowledge about under water photography can help out here. --Augustgeyler 15:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --August Geyler (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Seattle_in_May_2023_-_026.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Seattle Japanese Garden --Another Believer 14:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Halavar 16:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a nice composition. But it looks   Overprocessed resulting in oversharpening and loss of detail. --Augustgeyler 05:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support. Beautiful image and good quality -- Spurzem 16:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 17:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. Good details. My only question is about the white balance of the sky, but it's plausible. -- Ikan Kekek 20:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Well, I don't think my vote can change the result, but per Augustgeyler --LexKurochkin 09:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 14:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Mating_pair_of_Junonia_almana_(Linnaeus,_1758)_-_Peacock_Pansy_(2)_WLB.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mating pair of Junonia almana (Linnaeus, 1758) - Peacock Pansy (2) WLB (by Anitava Roy) --ManaskaMukhopadhyay 03:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 09:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose eye not in focus --Charlesjsharp 10:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Regarding the rather high resolution good enough. When compared to numerous similar quality images that often struggle to achieve anything more than the minimum 2 MPixels required for "difficult to shoot subjects", this image certainly offers sufficient detail. --Smial 10:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems like an easy pass for QI IMO. Rhododendrites 13:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. Obvious QI. Big deal that the butterfly on the right has a not totally sharp eye. -- Ikan Kekek 20:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Opel_Kadett_A_1X7A7331.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Opel Kadett A in Stuttgart.--Alexander-93 16:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment The rag on the right front wheel is very annoying. Otherwise, the picture is too pale overall, but this could be improved. -- Spurzem 20:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment It was a grey day here in Germany. I think the colors are real, please check the blue "D" at the number plate. For sure, the rag is not perfect, but maybe it also stand for the things that happen at shows of vintage cars. Let's see, what others think.--Alexander-93 11:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Neutral. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 12:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support. The car paint seems to me to be very close to the original in terms of color. The background is a little pale, but not too overexposed. Overall, the diffuse lighting is rather favorable. Sharpness looks good. The radial tires are a bit out of place, but not a problem. The "thing" on the front wheel is not really nice, but irrelevant for a QI, because there could also have been an inhibitor against rolling away, which wouldn't bother. I think significantly more unattractive pictures have already been awarded here. --Smial 09:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Per smial. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support OK, as per others. -- Ikan Kekek 21:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others --LexKurochkin 11:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 14:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)