Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 01 2021

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Plaque_of_the_monument_to_the_fallen_compatriots_in_Lyalitsy.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plaque of the monument to the fallen compatriots in Lyalitsy --Reda Kerbouche 06:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose IMO not sharp enough and disturbance right below. --F. Riedelio 11:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support We had a discussion about this kind of photo recently. My remarks are the same this time: This is a reflective surface that can't look pinpoint sharp the way another type of surface can. I think the photo is sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 06:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I’d like to oppose. The surface/detail could be much sharper if not taken by a smartphone. Sometimes the smartphone photo quality is just not sufficient. --Nefronus 11:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 16:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't see a really severe problem with this one. --Smial 18:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Nefronus. --Mosbatho 16:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Good enough IMHO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

File:F-16_Demo_2016-4.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination An F-16 from the Demonstration Team performing at the NAS Ft Worth Air Show in April 2016. --Balon Greyjoy 10:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
    Can you remove the CA, esp. on the front of the wings? --Nefronus 05:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I find this photo as too dark and a bit too noisy. --Hillopo2018 08:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough, IMO, though it must have been a really gray day to look like this around noon. -- Ikan Kekek 05:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am adding the count now and the CA still hasn’t been removed. --Nefronus 07:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I removed the vote cast by new User:Hillopo2018 who was not allowed to vote yet. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed resp. low contrast --Smial 12:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Église_Saint-Maurice_(Ebersmunster)_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint-Maurice Church in Ebersmunster (Bas-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 08:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. This one's the best of the set. Promotion for this one. --Hillopo2018 08:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support This one's the best of the photo set. --Hillopo2018 08:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose Too noisy and many artifacts. --Ermell 20:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell. -- Ikan Kekek 05:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Noise ok, I think it's better. Gzen92 15:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO not sharp enough, especially the onion roofs. --F. Riedelio 15:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support now. -- Ikan Kekek 23:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too strong posterization. --Selbymay 10:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question How many more of those almost identical pictures are you going to present us here? --Palauenc05 21:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    that day I took 35 photos, I kept four : two viewing angles (to hide the panel and container), with and without HDR (ok not obvious). Gzen92 [discuter] 07:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I removed the vote by User:Hillopo2018 (new user, not allowed to vote yet). --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment In my opinion, a quality image promotion as one set of the image series would be good :). This also makes the different effects more directly comparable. --PantheraLeo1359531 15:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Tablet_of_the_memorial_of_the_mass_grave_at_the_Gdov_cemetery.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tablet of the memorial of the mass grave at the Gdov cemetery --Reda Kerbouche 18:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Bad lights --Hillopo2018 08:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Shadows are a way of life for a photographer. Rodhullandemu 10:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Plaque is perfectly viewable. -- Ikan Kekek 08:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Hillopo2018. Poor lighting. A useful image but not QI, IMO. --Tagooty 13:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan Kekek --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan Kekek. --Nefronus 19:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is ok. --Mosbatho 15:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Changed my opinion on this image. --Mosbatho 17:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I’ve looked more thoroughly at the image and I agree with Tagooty. Useful, but the detail quality is not good enough imo. --Nefronus 22:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lighting is one of the most important variables in a quality photograph. For an item this size, full sun or full shade should be achievable by waiting until the correct time of day, or an overcast day would give more diffuse lighting. Or shadows could be filled in using a reflector or judicious use of flash. The shadows are significantly distracting and make the letters more difficult to make out. --Lambda (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support, good enough, per Ikan. --Smial 10:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Panoramic_view_of_Rome_from_Piazza_San_Pietro_in_Montorio_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view of Rome from Piazza San Pietro in Montorio (by Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 15:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry: not sharp enough (motion blur), too less contrast, noisy foreground. --F. Riedelio 14:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I disagree, discuss please. --Tournasol7 19:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good sharpness to my eyes, even at full size (except for the plants on the left). Hazier in the background, but that's normal and OK. -- Ikan Kekek 18:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 18:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: not sharp enough --Hillopo2018 08:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I removed the vote by User:Hillopo2018 (new user, not allowed to vote yet). --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Almost the whole image has double contours/suffers from motion blur. Sorry. --Nefronus 11:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Nefronus. The composition is nice, but the blurring too visible. --Zinnmann 17:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)