Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 12 2022

Consensual review edit

File:Shoveler_(Anas_clypeata)_female.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Shoveler (Anas clypeata) female --Charlesjsharp 15:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Harsh lighting and blurry --El Golli Mohamed 22:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me --Uoaei1 04:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Head is blurred. -- Ikan Kekek 05:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I'm used to seeing a higher level of quality from Charles, but it's a fairly old photo.--Peulle 08:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Milseburg 10:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Palazzo_Albornoz_and_Loggetta_Veneziana_-_Piazza_del_Popolo_(Cesena).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Albornoz palace and the Loggetta Veneziana fortification. --Terragio67 03:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. No QI for me due to massif posterization in the sky. --Milseburg 13:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   new version uploaded Thanks for your review. --Terragio67 19:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good enough for QI. You fixed the posterization, so I no longer oppose. Perhaps others could complain that there is still some CA on the power lines.--Milseburg 12:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   new version uploaded I removed CAs using darktable, THX for your reviews. --Terragio67 17:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Terragio67: That wasn't an inprovement. The CAs are gone but the posterization is back. Please remove. --Milseburg 18:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   new image uploaded I am sorry... This time I didn't use darktable, that is not working properly. THX for your patience. --Terragio67 20:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Acceptable to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support To mee too now. --Milseburg 14:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. --LexKurochkin 19:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 10:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Erbdrostenhof_--_2022_--_4223.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Balcony railing with year at Erbdrostenhof in Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but there is visible CA on windows, perspective correction needed. Let's discuss. --LexKurochkin 20:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I withdraw my objection. --LexKurochkin 19:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Done Sorry, I don't know what happened. The former photograph was the complete undeveloped version. I just uploaded the developed version. --XRay 05:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    •   Support Everything is fine now. --LexKurochkin 19:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 00:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me. --Tournasol7 13:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 10:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Palazzo_del_Ridotto_(Palazzo_del_Capitano)_vista_laterale_2_-_Cesena.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Captain palace - Palazzo del ridotto (lateral view heading 300) --Terragio67 19:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Massif postarzation in the sky. I don't think it's fixible. --Milseburg 13:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   new version uploaded
    Many thanks for your review! The image, now, is really better... , I moved to Discuss the nomination. --Terragio67 20:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support You fixed it. Good enough for QI now. --Milseburg 12:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 00:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 10:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Palazzo_comunale_(dettaglio_2)_prospettiva_a_due_punti.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination County palace (detail of Albornoz palace) --Terragio67 19:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 04:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. No QI for me due to the massif postarization in the sky. --Milseburg 13:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   new softer version uploaded from RAW
    Thanks for your review. --Terragio67 20:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support You fixed it. --Milseburg 12:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 00:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 10:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_basking_position_of_Freyeria_putli_(Kollar,_1844)_-_Black-spotted_Grass_Jewel.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Close wing basking position of Freyeria putli (Kollar, 1844) - Black-spotted Grass Jewel --ManaskaMukhopadhyay 14:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Support Good quality. --Ermell 16:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
    all these images are the same size. are they downsized? --Charlesjsharp 16:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Charlesjsharp: what do you mean by downsized, can you please explain--Atudu 08:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    Hi. You start with 6000 x 4000 pixles, then you crop to say 3000 x 2000. If you then resize to 2550 x 1700 that would be downsizing. I was just wondering how/why your 3 images were all exactly 2550 x 1700 --Charlesjsharp 08:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Charlesjsharp: According to Wikimedia commons image upload guidelines, it is clearly mentioned that the images should have at least 2mp, i.e., 1600 X 1250 pixels approx. Then how does it matter if I keep the sizes of my images 1700 pixels? It anyways meets the minimum requirements. Moreoever, the images also do not have any high level of compression or any other visible artifacts. It will be helpful if you clarify this issue.--ManaskaMukhopadhyay 10:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
      Comment See Commons:Image guidelines#Quality and featured photographic images: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality." -- Ikan Kekek 03:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)   Comment It should be dicussed in CR. --Milseburg 10:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
      Oppose downsized --Charlesjsharp 19:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Downsampled. -- Ikan Kekek 23:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle 08:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Milseburg 10:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_basking_position_of_Spialia_galba_(Fabricius,_1793)_-_Asian_Grizzled_Skipper.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Close wing basking position of Spialia galba (Fabricius, 1793) - Asian Grizzled Skipper --ManaskaMukhopadhyay 14:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Support Good quality. --Ermell 16:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
    all these images are the same size. are they downsized? --Charlesjsharp 16:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Charlesjsharp: what do you mean by downsized, can you please explain----Atudu 08:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)   Comment It should be dicussed in CR. --Milseburg 10:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
      Oppose downsized --Charlesjsharp 19:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality --El Golli Mohamed 00:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Question So is downsampling OK or not? -- Ikan Kekek 23:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose According to the rules downsizing is not o.k. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Downsampled. -- Ikan Kekek 23:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle 08:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Milseburg 10:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)