Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 20 2021

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review[edit]

File:Studenka-0016.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fallen trees near the Studenka river, Russia. --Alexander Novikov 22:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Sorry, oversharpened. --Nefronus 22:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
     Support For me is nothing oversharpend. Good quality. --Steindy 17:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The background looks strange and probably oversharpened. -- Ikan Kekek 07:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New version uploaded, sharpness reduced. Alexander Novikov 08:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks certainly better, so I change my vote. Nefronus 13:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Agreed, much better. -- Ikan Kekek 08:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 21:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Achleiten_bei_Limbach_01_-_DJI_0067.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castle Achleiten in Limbach --Hans Koberger 07:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Good for a drone image, but not enough for QI for me, sorry. --Nefronus 06:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enought for me --Commonists 16:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft for me.--Peulle 06:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • sharpened - hope it's better now --Hans Koberger 16:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's good enough now. -- Ikan Kekek 20:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Coual be a little bit sharper, but almosz good enough for QI. --Steindy 15:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 21:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Bodegraven_,_de_Sint_Galluskerk_RM9751_vanaf_de_Oude_Rijn_IMG_9246_2021-05-30_18.21.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bodegraven-NL , church (Sint Galluskerk) from the Oude Rijn --Michielverbeek 19:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, the detail is quite misty + it would be better with more space on the top. --Nefronus 23:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me --Commonists 16:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • At this moment I am very busy with making new photos so I hope to find some time this evening --Michielverbeek 05:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry I cannot enter my version before the crop --Michielverbeek 20:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI --Moroder 10:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Steindy 15:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 21:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Oak_avenue,_Dänschenburg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination L 191 state road lined with oak trees (Dänschenburg, Germany). -- Radomianin 18:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too low dynamic range, sorry. There are almost black/white parts. → Support. --Nefronus 23:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review. Unfortunately, a wider dynamic range is difficult to get for this type of handheld shot with this SLR. In my opinion, the dynamic range is good enough under these lighting conditions. --Radomianin 08:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Some very small burnt details. Some very small dark areas without detail. Both are completely normal with this lighting and not at all annoying. All relevant parts of the picture are well exposed and the overall picture impression looks very natural and balanced. --Smial 14:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support This was difficult to decide (have looked 3 times or so at it) ;–). Subject and composition are very good, this would be a great photo if the dynamic range was better. But as Smial has explained very well, the exposure is correct and the defects are minor, so QI. --Aristeas 08:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support To @Nefronus: . Welcome to QIC, but please read this --Moroder 11:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I have been there for a while (a few months) and I even read the linked discussion. I reviewed many unreviewed pictures in good faith that day. Yes, 2–3 reviews might have been too strict (and subsequently got corrected in the discussion), but I think the vast majority has been fair/objective. Nefronus 13:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded Thanks a lot for your reviews :) @Nefronus: , @Smial: , @Aristeas: and @Moroder: I have uploaded a new version despite your support: To get a little more balance, I have reduced the shadows of the darkest parts a bit. Many regards to you -- Radomianin (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 21:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Crested_caracara_perched_on_a_cactus.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Southern caracara on Bonaire, BES Islands. By User:Atsme --Tomer T 16:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Commonists 17:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose Quite good, but imo on the lower side of resolution and detail. Look at the back of the head and the wing feathers. Let’s discuss. --Nefronus 18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Appears a bit overprocessed, but it is good enough for QI. --Smial 09:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Moderate  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 06:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 21:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 21:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Erdbeeren_IMG_9997.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Erdbeeren zum selbstpflücken in der Vorderpfalz, Deutschland. --Fischer.H 17:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Review
     Support Good quality. --Commonists 19:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose The achenes on the nearest strawberries are blurred. --Nefronus 19:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose Not sharp enough, As Nefronus --Lmbuga 22:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Small_garden_in_Casa_della_Nave_Europa_(Pompeii).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination small garden in Casa della Nave Europa (Pompeii) --Commonists 16:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too tilted. --Remontees 22:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --XRay 08:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine for me. --Palauenc05 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor sharpness at edges, especially the lower one, and clearly a compositional disproportion with too much of the ground and too few of the building. --A.Savin 17:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo is a bit overexposed, in the sunlit part of the scene the colors of the flowers and greenery are eroded. However, in a photo of a garden, I don't think it's crucial for QIC that surrounding buildings are fully shown. I think the composition is actually quite okay. --Smial 12:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • White balance looks off to me now. -- Ikan Kekek 20:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Better. Change vote to  Support. --Smial 15:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The wall on the left looks strangely purple to me, and the light seems unnaturally dulled. -- Ikan Kekek 07:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The version of 16:55, 7. Jun. 2021 was better. The colour adjustment was way too strong. -- Smial 09:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Better, but that wall still looks a bit odd to me. -- Ikan Kekek 19:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The composition and the subject are nice, yet 1) there are some overexposed parts on the irises on the left side, 2) the detail looks somewhat crude, see e.g. the left wine plant. Nefronus 18:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed in the sunlit part, sharpness on some of the leaves etc inadequate. --Tagooty 16:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)