Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 07 2022

Consensual review edit

File:Mosteiro_dos_Jeronimos_-_Ceiling_at_Exit.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mosteiro dos Jerónimos - Painting on ceiling at Exit --Imehling 06:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)<br /
  • {{o}} The frame on the right side is very inconvenient (disturbing, sorry)--Lmbuga 15:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I have uploaded a new file with different crop --Imehling 10:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough now. --Smial 10:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough now--Lmbuga 11:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Tafers_Sensler_Museum_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Regional Museum in Tafers, Switzerland -- --Matutinho 05:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   OpposeOverblown sky, object too dark, vertical lines tilted. Sorry. --Imehling 07:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) --
    •   Comment Thanks for the commentary. I have modified the image. --Matutinho 08:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      •   Comment Tut mir leid, das funktioniert so nicht. Wenn man etwas fotografiert, sollte man die Sonne im Rücken haben, damit sie die Vorderseite des Objekts beleuchtet (Ausnahmen bestätigen die Regel). --Imehling 11:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
        •   CommentUnfortunately, my knowledge of English is limited. So I will take the liberty of answering here in German as well. Du hast Recht, aber bei Nordfassaden wird das auf der Nordhalbkugel schwierig. Das Haus ist gut ausgeleuchtet, gerade weil die Sonne nicht direkt auf die Fassade scheint, auch die so genannte Untersicht (Dachvorsprünge) sind klar strukturiert. Andernfalls wären sie im Vollschatten. Das wäre meiner Meinung nach ziemlich mies. Und noch fürs breitere Publikum: The main façade faces north. In Central Europe, the sun shines in the south. Precisely because the sun does not shine directly on the façade, the eaves / arch do not cast full shadows. That would look pretty bad. --Matutinho 21:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
          • OK, let's have a discussion. --Imehling 06:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Version 2 of the file is rather blurry compared to version 1. --Tsungam 07:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Although the photo has been scaled down to about 6 MPix, which I can accept depending on the shooting situation, it is still relatively blurry in wide areas. There is also some noticeable CA. In general, I don't think it's a good idea to darken burnt, overexposed clouds to some muddy gray level. This neither makes the photo look more natural nor adds any details. I realize, of course, that this is a very difficult lighting situation. --Smial 10:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others--Lmbuga 21:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blurry, and top and right crops are problematic. -- Ikan Kekek 22:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Sandro Halank 14:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Sandro Halank 14:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Raggiolo_Tuscany_Italy_2020-08-25.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A pedestrian way at Raggiolo - Tuscany - Italy --Terragio67 08:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --N. Johannes 21:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose All the right side is tilted. Overprocessed sky: It has two collors--Lmbuga 18:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lmbuga. -Smial 10:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I still remember every wall and every house were tilted there. Anyway I enjoyed whatever I saw. ;-) --Terragio67 21:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • And, excuse me, did you enjoy a sky with two colors? Sorry--Lmbuga 21:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Honestly, I didn't apply any filter on the sky. It was, probably, the consequence of the relative humidity level, that went up during the sunrise. --Terragio67 22:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • According to Image quality guidelines, do you think the two colors sky is a typical issue that should be handly corrected? --Terragio67 06:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Sorry, excuse me, the sky is overprocessed IMO--Lmbuga 11:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lmbuga --Sandro Halank 14:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Sandro Halank 14:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Ludwigstraße_60,_Modegeschäft_20210821_HOF04258_RAW-Export_20220128001287cens.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A fashion store in Hof, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 14:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Oppose Needs some tilt/perspective correction. --C messier 19:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
      Oppose No reaction since one week. --Steindy 22:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
      Support I do not see a consistent lean in any direction. Looks OK to me. --King of Hearts 00:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
      Support Perspective is good enough here. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Check the buildings to the left. They lean in significantly. --C messier 07:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    •   Comment I have corrected the original version with ShiftN as a test. If you don't like it, just reset it. --Smial 15:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      •   Comment Perspective is good, but needs a better crop at the top. --C messier 18:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
        •   Comment You're right. I had initially uploaded my version only as a suggestion and refrained from further editing, but now cropped it as well. --Smial 10:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good now IMO. --Lmbuga 16:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good quality now. -- Ikan Kekek 07:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Freedom_Convoy_2022,_February_12_(BW_3).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: A person is writing on a truck during "Freedom Convoy" protest in Ottawa, Canada --Maksimsokolov 00:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. The photo is not only too noisy for me, but also has strong vignetting. --Steindy 12:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Special case. Love it--Lmbuga 21:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy. --Tagooty 15:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support seems good for these type of photo. Tomer T 09:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but per Steindy. This isn't a QI to me. --Sandro Halank 14:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Sandro Halank 14:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Burgruine_Stollburg-20220213-RM-162108.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Stollburg Castle Ruin --Ermell 08:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Support Good quality. --Steindy 12:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
      Oppose The top is kind of blurry and distorted. It detracts from the rest of the image. --Adamant1 07:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support It is OK to me. --Matutinho 06:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Burned subject. Poor quality IMO--Lmbuga 21:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Burned highlights, per Lmbuga. --Smial 12:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Question Really burned? There are plenty of details, and pretty much every stone is individually visible. -- Ikan Kekek 18:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial --Sandro Halank 14:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Sandro Halank 14:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)