Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 12 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Körperich_Schloss_Kewenig.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kewenig Castle in Körperich, Germany. --Palauenc05 08:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Well composed but level of detail is too low here. --Augustgeyler 08:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment Other opinions, please. --Palauenc05 09:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the roof is a problem. It is out of focus and overprocessed, low level of detail on the roof. --LexKurochkin 07:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I see a very good composition with nice contrasts and pleasant colors. Only the roof could be a bit sharper. Overall it's a quality picture for me. -- Spurzem 08:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 13:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Innenleben_der_Nintendo_Switch_20230405_HOF09139_RAW-Export.png[edit]

  • Nomination The internal hardware of the original Nintendo Switch from 2017. --PantheraLeo1359531 18:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Very good quality, but it's upside-down? (per most of the text) --Mike Peel 19:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO all it’s OK, at the bottom, the main PCB model code/number is correctly oriented --Mister rf 22:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  InfoYes, the alignment of the hardware is indeed irritating. I stuck to how you hold the device in your hand. Thus, the USB-C port is at the bottom, and the volume keys and game card slot are at the top. : (like this: File:Nintendo Switch Portable.png) --PantheraLeo1359531 14:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Various details are marked in different directions, so any orientation would create the same feeling that something is upside-down IMO. --LexKurochkin 06:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality --Tagooty 02:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 14:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

File:2023_Toyota_Corolla_Touring_Sports_Hybrid_(E210)_1X7A7081.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Toyota Corolla Touring Sports Hybrid (Facelift) in Filderstadt.--Alexander-93 15:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 22:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Augustgeyler 00:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Small DoF. Too small for the object.--Der Angemeldete 11:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Der Angemeldete. DoF is too shallow, back wheel and back side of the car are slightly out of focus. --LexKurochkin 06:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The cut is too narrow, the windshield is too light. In addition, the license plate holder without a license plate is annoying. The car is too badly placed to take an attractive picture. -- Spurzem 09:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 14:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Vista_Panorámica_Capilla_Santa_Teresa_de_Jesús,_Pichidangui_-_A742339-Pano.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view of the Santa Teresa de Jesús Chapel, Pichidangui. --Rjcastillo 03:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 03:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the horizon isn't straight. --Milseburg 11:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks. --Rjcastillo 05:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment The horizon is still wavy. You have improved the marked area. But the level of the horizon to the right and left of the rock is different. --Milseburg 14:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
        • ✓ Done Thanks, corrected a bit. --Rjcastillo 23:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Better, but not perfect. I hope, there will be more voices, whether it's good enough for QI. --Milseburg 10:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Weather could be better, but it has high level of detail. I think a slight curvature of the horizon is ok in a wide angle panorama. --Imehling 12:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 14:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Range_Rover_Sport_Series_III_1X7A6994.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Range Rover Sport Series III at Automesse Salzburg 2023.--Alexander-93 19:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 19:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, too many reflections (e.g., try to read 'Range Rover' on the back)! --Mike Peel 19:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I don't think that the author could control lighting under the circumstances. The car was polished, there were many light sources around, so, I would expect reflections in all the directions. --LexKurochkin 07:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
    • If it were a special subject, then that would make sense - but it's a car that could have been photographed under better lighting another time. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It may be that the photographer wasn't able to influence the lighting conditions here, but then, as is so often the case, no quality picture was possible. I only see something big black and too tight cut. A pity! -- Spurzem 09:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 14:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)