Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 22 2021

Consensual review edit

File:Face_of_Horse_in_Manno_(Switzerland).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Face of Horse in Manno (Switzerland) --Commonists 17:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Focus is certainly not where it should have been. --A.Savin 20:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • null --Commonists 22:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
    What exactly do you disagree about? --A.Savin 10:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    For me is quite sharp A.Savin --Commonists 19:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin.--Fischer.H 18:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disturbing beam across the face. --F. Riedelio 10:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per F. Riedelio, too shallow DoF, ears are half-cropped out. Sorry. --LexKurochkin 18:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --C messier 17:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Paris_Montmartre_Sacré-Cœur_Gargoyle--20140603-RM-160926.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Gargoyle at the Sacré Ceur Basilica on Mont Martre in Paris --Ermell 07:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Aristeas 10:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose spelling. A.Savin reverted my previous comment asking for the spelling to be corrected, so now I oppose. --Charlesjsharp 11:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support What's going on here? --Moroder 11:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    I reverted this "review" and that has upset Charlesjharp. --A.Savin 11:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Why did you revert it? -- Ikan Kekek 22:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Because this contained only "spell" as comment, and changed status from promotion to nomination, which doesn't make sense. --A.Savin 01:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, I didn't notice the change in status. -- Ikan Kekek 19:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me. --A.Savin 11:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I just made a suggestion that Sakre Ceur is not the correct spelling, which is quite reasonable. Charlesjsharp 13:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)~
    •   Done to complete it.--Ermell 22:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, and the file description on its page is fine. I imagine I'm missing something, but based on what I see now, I'd say that it's hard enough for people to type stuff in English without voting against a photo just because their description on this page has typos in it. -- Ikan Kekek 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --GRDN711 02:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 01:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Chiostro_Madonna_Santo_Calegari_il_Vecchio_Santa_Maria_delle_Grazie_Brescia.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Fountain with bronze statue in Brescia. --Moroder 11:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Looks like poorly processed -- most parts are noisy, and if you look at the columns' base, there is a visible border between noisy and NR'ed area. --A.Savin 12:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment I disagree. They are not if you look at normal size. --Moroder 13:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment The photo is pretty sharp at 70%, but I see some CA on the left side of the rightmost column in the picture frame and the arch above it. -- Ikan Kekek 09:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please stop pixel peeping. I have worked for years and work very hard for providing Wikimedia with good photographic documentation. Pardon me, this photo is very sharp at 100%, it was taken with a lens which cost me more than 3000 Euros not to speak of the camera. CA here is absolutely irrelevant (guidlines speak or relevant faults) --Moroder 11:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC).
  •   Question If noticing CA at 70% is not OK, at what size do you think people should look at your work? I'm not going to vote for the photo with the CA in it. -- Ikan Kekek 00:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ikan, please! I barely see CA at 100% and even at 100% it's IRRELEVANT and I don't see noise at 100% at all and it's a picture 8,672 × 9,385 pixels in size! People should look first of all at the object, then the composition, then the shadows, the details and and and; that is QI photography the rest is what I said: pixel peeping. Thanks --Moroder 04:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Well, I noticed it at 70%. Do you want your work judged at 50%? What percentage are you looking for? 40%? I definitely do take the sizes of your photos into account, as you've seen previously, but on this one, I think I may have to defer to others to make their decisions. -- Ikan Kekek 08:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please read my notes. I told you the image is perfect at 100% on my iMac Pro with Photoshop --Moroder 09:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment OK, well I guess we can chalk that up to having different browsers and different eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 10:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Excuse me if I insist, but I don't look at the photos on the browser. As I said, I check them with Photoshop, maybe that makes the difference. I'm expecting the reviews of others. Cheers :-) --Moroder 10:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Noise is okay, but weak support. Maybe an image resize could be done --PantheraLeo1359531 15:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Commonists 20:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment The arcs in the background, are they really elliptical? Or are they shown stretched vertically? --Smial 11:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Done @Smial: Thanks for the note --Moroder 17:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Better now. --Smial 11:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted A.Savin 01:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)