Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 09 2022

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Mujertomandosol-MDP.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Woman sunbathing in Mar del Plata, Argentina --Ezarate 00:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality Lmbuga 00:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. I see a lot of CAs. --Steindy 00:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
     Comment Not a lot. QI--Lmbuga 00:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Fixed Ezarate 11:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Question Still worth eliminating, no? -- Ikan Kekek 08:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo is crooked, has CA, has completely burnt highlights, but washed out shadow areas without details. Despite the high lighting contrast, it looks low-contrast and muddy. It also doesn't look really sharp, and positioning the subject centrally in the middle of the picture is not comprehensible from a compositional point of view. I don't know what the situation is with regard to the protection of personal rights in the country where the photo was taken, but in any case, a consensus to be photographed cannot be derived from the situation in which the photo was taken. Somehow this looks to me like a technically and creatively unsuccessful holiday snapshot. --Smial 17:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

File:2022-01-14_Women's_Sprint_at_2021-22_Oberhof_Luge_World_Cup_by_Sandro_Halank–091.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Women's Sprint test event at the 2021/22 Oberhof Luge World Cup: Julia Taubitz (Germany) --Sandro Halank 21:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose face lacking sharpness, and noisy. --Tomer T 08:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good IMO Lmbuga 15:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support OK for me. --Palauenc05 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support True, her face and hair are noisy at full size on my 23.5-inch monitor, but not too much on my 13-inch, and I think the quality is good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 08:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --Smial 17:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 22:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

File:2022-01-14_Women's_Sprint_at_2021-22_Oberhof_Luge_World_Cup_by_Sandro_Halank–084.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Women's Sprint test event at the 2021/22 Oberhof Luge World Cup: Madeleine Egle (Austria), Julia Taubitz (Germany), Natalie Geisenberger (Germany) --Sandro Halank 21:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose unsharp. --Tomer T 08:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good IMO--Lmbuga 15:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support OK for me. --Palauenc05 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 08:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. @Sandro Halank: It would be nice if the photos showing several people were annotated (see example), or at least had an exact description. --Steindy 18:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

File:LG_market_square_Ukraine_solidarity_small_planet_265°_shrinked.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stitched panorama presented as little planet with a focus on the illuminated townhall and candles around a statue --Virtual-Pano 22:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Interresting perspective, good quality. --Steindy 10:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
    Not sure about this. Pebbles are sharp, but many of the buildings aren't, and seems overprocessed. I understand this is a high res photo, but better discuss this. --Tomer T 09:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support I have to agree that the pebbles are disproportionately sharper than the buildings, but as a whole I think it is sufficient for quality image status. --aismallard 13:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good quality Lmbuga 19:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose OK, it's a very big file, but the tower of the town hall at the top of it looks unsharp and weird even at 40% of full size. I have to reduce it to 30% for it to look fairly OK, and there's still a lot of noise in the sky at that size. Even at merely full-page size, I see a bunch of lens flares. It could be that I'm concentrating too much on the trees and losing the forest - the artistry - somewhat. If so, I'm sure you all will overrule me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support I am always a little unclear what to do with photos in this presentation. But you can print it in acceptable sharpness about one metre wide and one metre high. For me, that's good enough. --Smial 17:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks for bringing the noise and lack of focus to my attention. The initial upload was simply a work in progress file and should not have been uploaded. The current version is correct but just quarter size --Virtual-Pano 22:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Steindy 18:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

File:2021-12-07_Fußball,_Männer,_UEFA_Champions_League,_RB_Leipzig_-_Manchester_City_FC_1DX_2828_by_Stepro.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Men's Soccer, UEFA Champions League, RB Leipzig - Manchester City FC: Mohamed Simakan (RB Leipzig, 2), header. By --Stepro 23:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose PoV, crop at top --Charlesjsharp 11:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    I would accept the decline, but I don't understand the reason. --Stepro 12:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    sorry, crop at bottom with floating head, not top --Charlesjsharp 21:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support If you look at it just as a series of forms, it's unconventional but interesting; however, I expect Charles' viewpoint to carry the day. -- Ikan Kekek 08:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks. I didn't understand the supposed problem at the top of the picture, which Charles has then corrected. I can at least understand the problem with the head at the bottom, even if I see it differently. It could easily be removed, but I intentionally left it in the picture to illustrate the jump height. I always think that pictures are allowed to have a message instead of just being "beautiful". ;-) --Stepro 17:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. But outside-the-box photos often have a hard time here. -- Ikan Kekek 19:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the head at the bottom is disturbing. --Sandro Halank 14:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Head is disturbing Imo--Lmbuga 17:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 22:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Beijing_Dong'anmen_Dajie-20071019-RM-211928.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Donghuamen Night Market --Ermell 09:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Imehling 16:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred image IMO--Lmbuga 16:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I realize that you can't expect continuous sharpness from front to back in the given lighting situation, but I can't find a really sharp area in the shot at all. In addition, the image description is really poor. On the other hand, I find the image composition quite appealing. Too bad it's not technically convincing. --Smial 10:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others: good photo, but not a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 22:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, too blurry --aismallard 12:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enough --Sandro Halank 14:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --C messier 22:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)