Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 15 2023

Consensual review edit

File:152_Calea_Victoriei,_Bucharest_(01).jpg edit

File:152 Calea Victoriei, Bucharest (01).jpg

  • Nomination 152 Calea Victoriei, Bucharest --Neoclassicism Enthusiast 07:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Nbierma 18:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good composition. But   Level of detail too low and lacking sharpness. --Augustgeyler 23:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - The light, composition, and sharpness are all good for the size/camera. @Neoclassicism Enthusiast, you'll probably find that any iphone photo has a hard time here. They're simply limited by a teeny tiny lens, so can't get as much detail as a dedicated camera. Rhododendrites 13:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose The building does look OK, but the photo is very small for 2023 and the sky is a little blotchy, so I think it's below the current standard of QIs. -- Ikan Kekek 09:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I must agree. Too small for a QIs 2023 standards. Also   Level of detail too low and lacking sharpness. --Halavar 16:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --BigDom 17:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

File:1_Strada_Rafael_Sanzio,_Bucharest_(03).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 1 Strada Rafael Sanzio, Bucharest --Neoclassicism Enthusiast 07:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Nbierma 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The cartouche, the main element of the image, lacks sharpness IMHO. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 17:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The cartouche lacks sharpness. In addition the level of detail is too low here, perhaps due to intense noise reduction or camera related reasons. --Augustgeyler 09:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others - marginal, but I think it's not sharp enough, considering the subject. -- Ikan Kekek 20:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Unlike the bottom part (which is good), upper part is not sharp enough. --Halavar 16:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --BigDom 17:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

File:51_Calea_Dorobanților,_Bucharest_(01).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 51 Calea Dorobanților, Bucharest --Neoclassicism Enthusiast 05:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Nice atmospheric scene. But   Level of detail too low. --Augustgeyler 18:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support. No conspicuous lack, interesting sky, good quality for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Augustgeyler.--Peulle 07:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough --LexKurochkin 12:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 21:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others also. Picture is not sharp enough and   Level of detail too low. Typical issues to most smartphone pictures --Halavar 16:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --BigDom 17:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Sala_Sporturilor_„Constantin_Jude”_(_Sala_Olimpia_)_-_2023_-_IMG_22.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sala Olimpia, Timișoara, Romania --Chainwit. 02:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Lacking sharpness and   Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 10:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 20:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality -- Spurzem 11:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Augustgeyler, the issue applies unfortunately to most pictures of Chinwit. Poco a poco 18:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Which issue? It would be interesting if the lack could be named exactly. -- Spurzem 17:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The words on the side are not sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 21:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I must agree with Augustgeyler and Poco a poco - picture is not sharp enough and   Level of detail too low. Typical issues to most smartphone pictures --Halavar 16:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --BigDom 17:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Bült,_Pins-Keller_--_2023_--_6831.jpg edit

 

  •   I withdraw my nomination IMO there isn't a good solution. The image is not the best, but possibly QI. Anyway, I think we should finish the discussion. Thank you! --XRay 05:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days XRay 05:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puerto_Vallarta,_Jalisco_(February_2023)_-_207.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco by User:Another Believer--Ezarate 21:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose This nomination was already rejected on 12 March 2023. --Augustgeyler 22:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Info This a reworked version, not the same --Ezarate 22:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Way too small! Per se ineligible. -- Ikan Kekek 03:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment redone, it was a wrong processing. Thanks!!! Ezarate 11:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No longer per se ineligible, but I'm not OK with the sky looking like that, without prejudice to anything else that might or might not be a reason to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek 01:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 20:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think here the sensor was overchallenged with the lighting conditions, the result is unfortunately not satisfactory. --Smial 15:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As it frequently happens with iPhones, the image was not sharp enough optically, but the software tried hard to compensate it by overprocessing. So, we see "granulated" sky, unnatural white halo near good half of high-contrast edges, but "very sharp" stones on the ground. --LexKurochkin 12:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is too   Overprocessed and not sharp enough, unfortunately as many smartphone pictures. --Halavar 16:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --BigDom 17:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)