Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 31 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Orpheus_MET_DP246605.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Orpheus by Cristoforo Stati (full size statue) at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. By User:Pharos --L'OrfeoGreco 14:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Good quality. --Plozessor 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose Unfortunately ineligible. Not created by a Commons user. --C messier 19:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose Indeed, overlooked that. Not eligible. --Plozessor 05:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 13:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Orpheus_MET_DP248117.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Orpheus by Cristoforo Stati at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. By User:Pharos --L'OrfeoGreco 14:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Good quality. But please fix the invalid category (or create that category). --Plozessor 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose Unfortunately ineligible. Not created by a Commons user. --C messier 19:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose Oh, then obviously to decline. --Plozessor 04:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Clearly ineligible images like this one could be speedily declined IMO, not sent to CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Correct. Unlike other criteria in the Guidelines, which use the word "should" a lot when it comes to judging quality, they specifically say that it "must have been created by a Commons user". Even with 100 votes to 0 in favour, it cannot be a QI unless its creator is a Commoner. It is therefore completely possible to speedily decline such images. --Peulle 13:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 13:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

File:RUMÄNIEN_-_Poiana_Horea_(Beliș)_-_Landschaft_im_Apuseni-Gebirge_(Munții_Apuseni)_16zu9_-_FOX-IMG_3680_(2023).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination ROMANIA: Landscape in the Apuseni Mountains (Munții Apuseni) --Eddy Renard 10:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Tilted, right side leaning in, left side straight. it needs both, a tilt correction and a perspective correction --Poco a poco 11:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Are you sure that you mean THIS picture?!? - It's not tilted at all. --Eddy Renard 07:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Lock at the black building, some CCW tilt. --ArildV 10:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No, that's real. The building is not straight. Este România ;-) --Eddy Renard 06:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • The right side IS slightly tilted, you can see from all the buildings and the masts on the hill. (Besides, the quality is not very good, there was significant NR applied. But that alone might probably not disqualify it for QI.) --Plozessor 06:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Romanian masts are no criteria for straightness. ;-) Compare the sticks in the haystacksk with the masts. --Eddy Renard 13:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • But all masts, houses and trees (!) on the right side are equally tilted. I'm NOT speaking of the house left of those haystacks, that might be crooked. --Plozessor 13:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a nice composition. But I have to agree with Poco a poco and Plozessor that this image appears to be tilted to a degree that is irritating. --AFBorchert 06:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 06:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Marked the area with tilted objects in the image. Should be easy to fix. If fixed, I would support this as a QI. --Plozessor 06:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support. Beautiful image, good compostion, good quality -- Spurzem 09:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It does need a perspective correction (otherwise the people in those houses must wonder why all their stuff keeps falling into the corner of the room) and author seems unwilling, so will oppose. BigDom (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 13:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

File:013_Wild_Baby_Chamois_Riederalp_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Baby chamois in Aletsch Forest Nature Reserve --Giles Laurent 17:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Oppose camera shake or missed focus? --Charlesjsharp 08:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    The focus is good enough imo. Maybe it is the 42MP resolution that gives you this impression. Let's hear what others think. --Giles Laurent 14:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Most of the resolution is not the chamois, and while most of the rest of the chamois is in focus, the head is not. -- Ikan Kekek 06:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Focus not perfect, but good enough for an A4 size print. --Smial 15:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Done I sharpened the chamois. What do you think now Ikan Kekek ? --Giles Laurent 20:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Still not a QI to me, for the reason I state. -- Ikan Kekek 18:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support The new version looks significantly better to me, QI in my opinion. --AFBorchert 07:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Sufficiently sharp for QI IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support New version is really good! --Plozessor 05:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 13:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

File:015_Wild_Red_Deer_Switzerland_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Young red deer in Aletsch Forest Nature Reserve --Giles Laurent 17:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose motion blur? --Charlesjsharp 08:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    There is no motion blur IMO. The animal's facial hair and eyelashes can be distinguished. Even the insect flying past the animal's leg is perfectly still. Also it is a 42MP photography so maybe it is the high pixel resolution that gives you this impression. Let's hear what others think. --Giles Laurent 14:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Undecided. At full resolution, this picture is REALLY bad (taken with ISO 1000 and with massive NR applied). On the other hand, it has really high resolution, with some downscaling it would look good. --Plozessor 17:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for your opinion Plozessor. The original image had no NR. I uploaded a new file 50% the size of the original and with NR this time. What do you think ? I can still make adjustments if needed. --Giles Laurent 21:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good now. --King of ♥ 06:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, now I definitely support this as a QI. --Plozessor 06:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

*  Support The amount of blurring on the left bugs me, but that's personal taste. The animal is sharp and the composition looks pretty good at full screen. -- Ikan Kekek 06:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  •   Comment I didn't realize it was downscaled. You are not supposed to downscale files to make them seem sharper. -- Ikan Kekek 15:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The downscaling was completely unnecessary. Both the image noise and the image sharpness of the original are on a very good level considering the high image resolution and the camera settings required due to the lighting circumstances. Here on commons, wildlife or zoo photos downsized to just over 2 MPixels are also appreciated because of otherwise visible flaws. The photo is otherwise somewhat overexposed, there are unfortunately in the bright areas, especially on the forehead of the animal details lost. If that can be improved a bit (it probably won't be quite perfect) and with smoother denoising, I would give a pro for the image in original resolution. --Smial 15:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  •   Done Thank you for the feedback Ikan Kekek and Smial. I uploaded a new full size version that I sharpened. I also reduced a bit the highlight on the forehead on a natural level (keeping in mind that the subject is backlit in a dark forest). What do you think now ? --Giles Laurent 19:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support There are some blown highlights, but they're not really apparent except when stared at at full resolution. I think enough of the deer is sharp enough and that it's a good capture of a deer in motion. -- Ikan Kekek 18:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Rework successful in my opinion. Thx. --Smial 08:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Definitely, really good now! --Plozessor 05:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 13:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Baluarte_de_San_Diego,_Manila,_Filipinas,_2023-08-27,_DD_60.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Baluarte de San Diego, Manila, Philippines --Poco a poco 11:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose The wall seems motion-blurred and additionally the sky is overexposed --FlocciNivis 21:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   New version with new crop and more sharpening Poco a poco 11:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • As I haven't got any feedback in 2 days and tomorrow the bot would archive the nom, may I ask for a second opinion? --Poco a poco 18:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support The light and clouds weren't great for you, but the photo is OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharpness on the wall is borderline, leaning acceptable due to the large resolution, but I agree with FlocciNivis that the sky looks overexposed, sorry. BigDom 16:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I also agree with FlocciNivis, not sharp, and overexposed sky. Mike Peel 12:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 13:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)