Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 20 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Besko_Wisłok_2015.08.22_p.jpg edit

 

*   Comment Author has fixed that but not commented here. --Plozessor 06:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful composition and good quality now as I think. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 20:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Just about acceptable now. --Plozessor 06:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Not very sharp indeed, but good enough --Jakubhal 07:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

File:NSG-00597.01_Kreuzbuckel_H.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Waldaschaff, nature reserve 00597.01 'Kreuzbuckel' --KaiBorgeest 22:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Support Good quality. --MB-one 11:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose Overexposed/burnt leaves and tree trunks. --C messier 10:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
      Weak oppose Would be great if the blown-out trunks could be fixed (which should be easy to do with a new raw conversion.) (Picture looks like JPG from camera, not manually processed raw file.) --Plozessor 10:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Sunrise_rowing_in_Varanasi.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A teenager rowing a boat on the Ganges River in Varanasi while the sun rises. --Jay.Jarosz 11:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose Looks posterized and lacks details. Sorry --Imehling 17:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
      Comment It's not posterized. The post-processing mostly consisted of increasing exposure and contrast and reducing noise. Color tones unchanged. As for detail, it not as relevant for a silhouette shot. --Jay.Jarosz 19:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose Even at 5 MP, the JPG and NR artifacts are clearly visible. Even at 0.9 MP you still see these effects. --Plozessor 19:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This looks very unnatural indeed. Post-processing created a lot of artifacts and this looks very unnatural. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Plozessor and Robert --Jakubhal 05:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

File:20210715_Απείρανθος_7362.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Alley in Apeiranthos, Naxos. --C messier 20:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose The woman disturbs. I would send her away or retouch. -- Spurzem 22:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
    Not really, but I see I have a similar photo without a person visible. --C messier 17:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
      Support Not a problem to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose I agree with Spurzem --Jay.Jarosz 04:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support The woman walking away seems a bit random to me but doesn't not destroy the composition. -- Ikan Kekek 20:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan.--Ermell 15:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Hanuma_La_-_Zingchen_-_Yaks_-_1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Zanskar Trek - Yaks between Hanuma La and Zingchen River / Ladakh, India --Imehling 16:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Oppose Not a good composition in my opinion. Not enough depth between foreground and background. The yaks are mostly looking away from the camera. The ones that are, aren't in clear focus. --Jay.Jarosz 17:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Well, I think a lot of pictures with worse composition have been promoted here. --Imehling 20:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Agree with Imehling. The picture is sharp enough, shows yaks' fronts, and has no major technical defects. --Plozessor 17:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. As Jay.Jarosz: Poor composition -- Spurzem 11:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor composition --Milseburg 19:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support: Seems acceptable to me as a picture of part of a herd, especially inasmuch as most of them are clearly in motion from the viewer's right to left. -- Ikan Kekek 20:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. Not a FP, but good enough for QI. --C messier 13:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)