Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 05 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Schoduvel_2023_-_05.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Braunschweiger Schoduvel 2023 in AltstadtmarkI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Stratokumulus 18:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Plusieurs éléments flous (flou de mouvement au niveau de la main de la dame, notamment), Grenadin07 22:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Info Set to "/Discuss" --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Live action shot, moving persons. The composition has some minor flaws, but when someone waves cheerfully, the hand may well be blurred. --Smial 11:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good to me. -- Ikan Kekek 00:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 00:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

File:003_Estonian_song_and_dance_celebration_2022_-_performance_preparation_V-P.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Preparations before going on stage --Virtual-Pano 14:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose  Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
    • @Ermell: looks like a mismatch between your evaluation and comment - Which one is correct? --Virtual-Pano 21:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ask for consensual review due to mismatch --Virtual-Pano 21:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, my mistake.--Ermell 11:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 00:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Thank you for nominating this technically well taken photo. But as it shows people on "preparation" for a dance show, I am unhappy with the fact, that everybody is turned away from the camera. No preparation and mostly no faces are visible. --Augustgeyler 20:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I completely understand August's point, but I think this is a valid moment to photograph. -- Ikan Kekek 00:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 00:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Toronto_CN_Tower_4.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination CN Tower of Toronto --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is a strong lighting artefact at the border between the building and the sky due to heavy tone mapping. --Augustgeyler 15:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    • @Augustgeyler: Thanks for your review, I tried to fix it. Is it better?--Fabian Roudra Baroi 16:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
      •   I withdraw my support Yes, you did improve it a lot. --Augustgeyler 19:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
      • @Augustgeyler: Thanks for your support, can you please remove the oppose vote? Otherwise, it will go to the consensual review. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
        •   Comment I did, but someone moved it back to consensual review. But I think other reviewers will agree here now. --Augustgeyler 08:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO OK, but please remove the overcategorization (see COM:OVERCAT) and add the geo location. Structured data would be nice. --XRay 13:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @XRay: Thanks for your support, category fixed. Can you give the link about how I can add geo manually?--Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Please look at your user preferences for utilities for geo referencing or COM:GEO. --XRay 06:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose the tower looks like having a halo. looks unnatural to me.--RZuo 06:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)@RZuo: Tried to fix it, is it better?--Fabian Roudra Baroi 19:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose halo. --Kallerna 11:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Since Kallerna and Rzuo are still complaining I changed my vote to neutral. --August Geyler (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
    • @Augustgeyler: I would request you to vote based on your judgement. Do you think it's so noticeable or unacceptable that it ruins the picture ? I wouldn't mind anything if you oppose with your judgement. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 00:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
      •   Comment I voted neutral, because I am: First I opposed to the original version due to the heavy halo effect. Than you improved it and I thought the artefact got small enough. Later, by reading others opposes, I checked your image again and came to the conclusion that I am unable to make a clear decission. The halo ist still there and it reduces the quality. Bot other voters might be right by telling the effect might be no problem. That's why I switched to neutral. --Augustgeyler 18:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support ok now.--Ermell 12:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Appears ok to me now. --Cayambe 09:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 00:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 00:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)