Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 17 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Red-winged_blackbird,_Highpark_08.jpg[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 06:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mănăstirea_Piariștilor,_Sighetu_Marmației_(2023)_-_IMG_07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Piarist Monastery, Sighetu Marmației --Chainwit. 10:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Halavar 15:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is perspective distortion and level of detail is too low. --Augustgeyler 05:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. In my opinion, the perspective is not too little, but rather unnaturally corrected. What I would like to see improved is the very dark building on the left. -- Spurzem 16:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The upper part is out of focus (pay attention to the clock and the cross on top of the roof), level of detail is rather low. --LexKurochkin 08:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing cars in the foreground. --F. Riedelio 09:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 06:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Seattle_in_May_2023_-_028.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Seattle Japanese Garden --Another Believer 14:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Good composition. But the image suffers from motion blur and its level of detail is too low. --Augustgeyler 14:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Of course, we do not see every vein in every leaf, but I think the level of detail is good enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support maybe a bit oversharpened, maybe a bit too much noise reduction, but I can not find the typicel doubled contours caused by motion blur. Good enough for QI. --Smial 13:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sorry, but rather low level of detail and oversharpened --LexKurochkin 08:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have to agree that this one is oversharpened, and it also looks overexposed in places. -- Ikan Kekek 09:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Smial. Not great of course, but QI for me. Detail level is enough IMHO --Halavar 16:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail too low  Level of detail too low --F. Riedelio 09:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 06:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)