Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 14 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Panteón_5_de_Diciembre_-_March_2023_-_028.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Panteón 5 de Diciembre, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico --Another Believer 21:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Picture is ok but please give it reasonable filename. --Plozessor 05:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Plozessor: I've submitted a move request. Thanks! -Another Believer 14:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Plozessor 18:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Verticals should be fixed --Ermell 20:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ermell. --Sebring12Hrs 23:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Bežanijski_soliteri_(360°_view).jpg edit

 

  •   Comment I don't mean any distortion in the plain view. My criticism relates to the representation of the zenith. There were wonderful cirrus clouds in the sky. But you obviously couldn't take photos looking up. So the zenith (the upper part of the image) had to be interpolated. At the zenith you can now see an artificial sky in a diffuse blue, which doesn't fit well to the sky with the beautiful clouds. This also looks unnatural in the pano viewer. Drone photography has advantages, but with 360x180 panos it is a challenge with the zenith and, in my opinion, solved unsatisfactorily here.--Milseburg 15:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Weak support Now I could open it in Panorama Viewer, and to me this is looking good. Yes, some parts of the cloud might be interpolated, but it doesn't seem to look unnatural. And the cloud are not the subject of the image, the city is. --Plozessor 18:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment The sky in the version of 18:46, 8. Nov. 2023 looks very cloned. I don't think the problem is solvabble without a real shot to the top. Maybe it would habe been possible if the sky have been cloudless. --Milseburg 15:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC))[reply]

File:Close_wing_Basking_of_Zipaetis_scylax_(Hewitson,_1863)_-_Dark_Catseye_WLB.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Close wing Basking of Zipaetis scylax (Hewitson, 1863) - Dark Catseye WLB --Anitava Roy 15:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Not really sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 16:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support. Sharp enough in my opinion. Please discuss. -- Spurzem
  •   Weak support Borderline sharpness/DOF. --Plozessor 05:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Plozessor. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC))

File:Closed-wing_nectaring_of_Papilio_clytia_Linnaeus,_1758_-_Common_Mime_(form_dissimilis).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Closed-wing nectaring of Papilio clytia Linnaeus, 1758 - Common Mime (form dissimilis). By User:Soumyadeep Maitra --Atudu 14:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Not really sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 23:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support. Sharp enough for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Focus is on the lower right part of the wing, head is OOF. --Plozessor 05:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Plozessor. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support It is sharp enough for macro shot --Nino Verde (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)