Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 10 2023

Consensual review

edit

File:Puerto_Vallarta_-_Jalisco_-_March_2023_-_016.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination The Good Fortune Unicorn, Puerto Vallarta --Another Believer 01:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality, but poor file description. Artist? --Palauenc05 14:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the sky looks   Overprocessed, there are visible digital artefacts on the sky. Let's discuss. --LexKurochkin 07:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per LexKurochkin, plus a minor tilt --Jakubhal 06:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Augustgeyler 08:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Puerto_Vallarta_-_Jalisco_-_March_2023_-_019.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Origen y destino, Puerto Vallarta --Another Believer 01:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 07:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Level of detail is too low here. --Augustgeyler 09:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sky, the sea, the people on the beach look   Overprocessed, blue-yelow moire on the building (far coast, near right side of the sculpture) --LexKurochkin 07:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed/Lost details --Jakubhal 06:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sculpture is sharp, maybe cropping would help to improve, otherwise per others.--Der Angemeldete 11:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Turquoise-browed_motmot_(Eumomota_superciliosa_apiaster)_Copan_2.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Turquoise-browed motmot (Eumomota superciliosa apiaster) --Charlesjsharp 07:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Achim Raschka 09:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose low resolution.--~~~~ --Atudu 14:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
    •   Comment Not a valid reason for oppose. 2MP is OK. Revenge vote --Charlesjsharp 20:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment I mistook between 2MP & 2MB, On that basis I commented "low resolution" as the image in discussion was 1.39 MB. Extremely sorry for this unwanted mistake and I apologies and no reason for thinking as revenge vote. --Atudu 11:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Considering the size of the subject, IMO that’s OK.--Mister rf 11:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough IMO --Jakubhal 06:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Nice and well composed image, but level of detail is too low. --August Geyler (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 23:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Exterior of St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan) 25-10-2018.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Exterior of St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan) --Sebring12Hrs 11:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose needs perspective correction. --Der Angemeldete 04:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. Asking for perspective correction from this perspective makes no sense - the perspective is part of the photo. --Mike Peel 20:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
    •   Comment The verticals are incorrect, cause the left side is leaning back. One can fix this also from messed up perspective. --Der Angemeldete 11:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not seeing anything wrong with the perspective.--Peulle 10:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO OK, but the filename should be better. --XRay 17:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
    •   Comment The renaming is done. --Sebring12Hrs 06:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Peulle --LexKurochkin 06:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The perspective is ok, but for me, the level of detail is just below the level I would expect --Jakubhal 06:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 23:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Hôtel_de_ville_(Oberhergheim).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination: Town hall of Oberhergheim (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 10:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Info Well composed image. But the sky is blown out. Fixable using raw data? --Augustgeyler 19:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    •   Oppose Blown out sky. --Augustgeyler 22:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree, it is just a white sky. --Sebring12Hrs 09:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Question @Gzen92: Could you please clarify wether the sky was reflecting or it just was a foggy day, when taking this photograph?--Der Angemeldete 12:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose less than 2 megapixels. --Cephas (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
    •   Info This is obviously not true for an image with 3800 x 3000 pixels. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
      •   CommentBut then what does the 1.84Mio mean and what does the 1.82MB mean when I download the full version on my computer? What is the size of it? --Cephas 08:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
        •   Comment Image size is 3800x3000 pixels (11,4 megapixels) and file size is 1,84 megabytes.--Peulle 10:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The first version was 5472x3648px, and it is exactly the resolution of Sony DSC-RX10M3 sensor, and we can easily compare the two versions. I have no doubts that the image is truly 2Mpx+. The day looks very cloudy. It is quite usual that big clouds out of focus look just white, as all the details are blurred, so some days white sky is just inevitable. On the other hand I see that DoF is insufficient for the subject (the roof, right side and left-back side of the building are out of focus) and the level of detail is rather low. I am not sure, but possibly it was due to combination of slight overprocessing and rather high JPEG-compression (and thus the size) or, possibly, it was double JPEG if the source was already compressed JPEG, than processed and compressed again. --LexKurochkin 13:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Sky is not blown, just very bright. --MB-one 07:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose All the area in the top left corner, the sky intensity levels of RGB in this image R=255, G=255, B=255. Can this be the definition of “blown up”? IMO: yes. --Mister rf 09:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)