Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 08 2024

Consensual review edit

File:Geumgang_Bridge,_Sokcho_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Geumgang Bridge, Sokcho, South Korea --Bgag 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Good but slightly tilted --Plozessor 03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)  Done You're right. --Bgag 15:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    No new version uploaded? --ArildV 08:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yes --Bgag 13:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
      Support Good now. --Plozessor 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
    I don't understand. I see only one version here, and its tilted. --ArildV 21:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
      Done My mistake. I have uploaded the new version. --Bgag 13:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Clearly QI now, good quality and composition.--ArildV 16:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --MB-one 10:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Bloemencorso_Zundert_2023_-_Afwas_1.png edit

 

  • Nomination Float of the 2023 flower parade of Zundert, titled "The dishes" --ReneeWrites 06:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Oppose Nice composition, but unfortunately lack of detail. --Alexander-93 07:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    Disagree - appears sufficient detail given the subject photographed!
      Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 09:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Alexander --Jakubhal 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support. I don't understand what „lack of detail“ will say. I miss nothing. -- Spurzem 21:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support. Good composition. Nacaru 09:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support If you zoom in the picture, it is true that there is a little lack of detail, but the composition and light are good. The topic of the picture is also interesting. --Shougissime 18:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Nothing wrong with this picture. --Plozessor 04:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --MB-one (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Martin_church_in_Limayrac_(3).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Saint Martin church in Limayrac, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support Good quality --Llez 05:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. It looks like the church is tipping backwards. In addition, the lighting is very unfavorable. Please discuss whether the photo is a quality image or whether a better shot could be imagined. -- Spurzem 09:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Spurzem -- Екатерина Борисова 07:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Verticals are fine. Exposure is good enough IMO. --MB-one 10:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Per MB-one. --Sebring12Hrs 11:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  Comment. It's amazing: If the verticals are right, a picture is good. Everything else doesn't matter. Every day I understand more and more why I no longer present photos here. -- Spurzem 13:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  Comment I don't like your attitude with me. Repect my vote please. I understand your opinion about the perspective, but I think it's acceptable here. --Sebring12Hrs 12:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unnatural distortion due to over-corrected perspective from a close angle, sorry. Mike Peel 07:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • From a purely technical point of view, the perspective correction has actually been done very well, in particular the image sharpness is significantly better than in some other photos with corresponding editing. Colors, contrasts and exposure are also very well done, and the anonymized license plates are hardly noticeable. On the one hand, I don't like such extreme wide-angle perspectives, but on the other hand, technically worse pictures with similar perspectives have won awards in the past. Because of the danger of double standards, therefore, a somewhat inconsistent weak   Support from me. --Smial 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support I am one of those who dont look just verticals to be fine (agree with Spurzem), because you see then trapez structure. But since isnt FP nom, is ok for QI. --PetarM 17:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Don't always agree with Spurzem but here I do. I would skew the picture (so that the left part becomes lower while the right part remains as it is). Then it would look more natural (and verticals would still be correct). --Plozessor 04:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Per Smial --PaestumPaestum 08:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
      Comment I am not sure whether you wanted to close this, but please wait until the latest entry is at least 48 h old and please don't forget to change the status from "/Discuss" to the appropriate entry (such as "/Promotion") when you close the discussion about an image. I changed "QICresult" to "QICtotal". --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Promoted   --MB-one 10:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)