Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 16 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Mumbai_-_Sassoon_Docks_Urban_Art_Festival_Building.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mumbai - Sassoon Docks Urban Art Festival Building --Imehling 05:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose The quality drop of the left side is too obvious --Poco a poco 07:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Why should it not be QI? I think it is good. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 07:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image is very distorted (see the lorry in the left) --Augustgeyler 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco a poco and Augustgeyler. --SHB2000 08:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too strong perspective correction, important parts of the building are not sharp enough. --LexKurochkin 08:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting sight, but the person on the left is way too distorted for the photo to be a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 07:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 07:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Mumbai_-_Kuvar_House_Building.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mumbai - Kuvar House Building, 1/B, Colaba Causeway, Colaba, Maharashtra 400005, Indien --Imehling 05:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose A very strong perspective correction led to an unrealistic reproduction of the proportions here. Additionally lens distortion is visible at the building (see right edge) --Augustgeyler 06:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, I disagree. You can't go further back at this place so when you want to get a picture of the whole building some perspective distortion is unavoidable --Imehling 15:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 07:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Lärmschutzwand_Sockelplatte_–_Typenschild.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Type plate of precast concrete for the construction of a noise barrier --Augustgeyler 05:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Question Doesn't it make sense to rotate the image? --Poco a poco 10:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment I thought about this. But the plate was standing in this oriantation and will be installed in this way. --Augustgeyler 23:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Please, make your mind up. If the subject is the label, it should be rotated, if it's the plate then the crop is too narrow (and no QI to me) --Poco a poco 17:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Question Does it comply with the rules to change an image to an orientation the object did not have in the real world? I mean, this precast conrete elements were stored in this orientation and will be installed exactly in this orientation. This sign was atached to them and would be oriented like here all the time. --Augustgeyler 17:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I believe so, but you can move to the CR section if you like Poco a poco 17:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Question Dear reviewers, please help us out! Who is right? --Augustgeyler 06:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd allow it, per your explanation. It would help if you would include your remarks about the orientation of the plate in your file descriptions. -- Ikan Kekek 07:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 22:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Seattle_in_May_2023_-_102.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Seattle Chinese Garden --Another Believer 13:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose   Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 17:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support. Beautiful picture with a view of the inner courtyard, good colors, sufficiently sharp. I often wonder which or whose pictures are dismissed and which pictures are praised, even if they have little lacks. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very low level of detail. Jakubhal 04:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jakubhal: Very low level of detail? Do you see the woman in the picture? If yes, you can see that the nipples mark under the sweater. Best regards -- Spurzem 08:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Detail in this case is about visible texture. The intense processing eliminated most of those textures on all surfaces. But very interesting to learn what objects your detail references are … --Augustgeyler 09:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@Augustgeyler: I just wanted to point out that details can be seen in the picture. It doesn't matter what the details are. And as I said: I notice that the photos of a certain user have almost no chance of a positive rating from you. Best regards -- Spurzem 10:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 07:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

File:12_Strada_Radu_Calomfirescu,_Bucharest_(01).png edit

 

  • Nomination 12 Strada Radu Calomfirescu, Bucharest --Neoclassicism Enthusiast 09:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Chainwit. 10:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   perspective distortion and level of detail is very low. --Augustgeyler 16:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment The title of the picture could read: "Rundown manorial building in Bucharest, in need of serious renovation". But why should the photo possibly described in this way not be a quality photo. I wouldn't always say "Decline!" say. -- Spurzem 15:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I must oppose because of the distracting cars and unfortunately that can't be fix. --Halavar 16:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sky is too blotchy. -- Ikan Kekek 07:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 07:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)