Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 05 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Ceiling_of_the_4_seasons_hall_-_Palazzo_Madama_(Turin).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination ceiling of the 4 seasons hall - Palazzo Madama (Turin) --Paris Orlando 08:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ercé 09:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I think this is too unsharp in places, especially on the right. -- Ikan Kekek 09:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The lens appears to be rather soft towards the corners, probably use of f/8 or f/11 could enhance the result. But good enough to be printed to A4 or letter size. --Smial 15:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 09:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very, very bad quality at the corners. Also camera was not vertical. --Shansov.net 17:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Paris Orlando 19:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Reflection_of_residential_building_(Obruchev_street,_house_4,_building_3)_in_Zapyataya_Pond_-_20181105_15397.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The reflection of the residential building in Zapyataya Pond in Moscow, Russia. --Bff 15:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Why inverted? The ducks are upside down. --MB-one 10:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose I can see the artistic expression of this image, but the ripples are unsharp and I find it hard to comprehend why it may be of encyclopedic value. --GerifalteDelSabana 01:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
     Support Interesting shot, nice colours. --Palauenc05 22:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Opposing a photo for supposedly not being of "encyclopedic value" is not a good idea, as almost anything could be encyclopedic and, anyway, it's not required to be encyclopedic to be in Commons or a QI/FP (though maybe to be a VI). I think this is a really pretty abstract picture. However, it's small and the water is blotchy/posterized. -- Ikan Kekek 07:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: Point taken. I, however, will still retain my oppose vote because of the aforementioned problem. GerifalteDelSabana 12:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unclear subject. It's hard to see what we're looking at.--Peulle 16:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan Kekek.--Fischer.H 18:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Paris Orlando 19:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Poggersdorf_St._Michael_ob_der_Gurk_Pfarrkirche_hl._Michael_got._Tür_Beschläge_11012019_5962.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Decorative hinges at the portal's wooden door of the parish church Saint Michael in Sankt Michael ob der Gurk, Poggersdorf, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 02:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm very sorry, but for me there are too many parts out of focus for a flat object. I'd like to read more comments for a consensual review. --PtrQs 00:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Some issues but the resolution is huge; the bottom is not too bad IMO. --King of Hearts 07:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Focus good enough. No need to count pixels on this subject. --Johannes Robalotoff 10:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very unsharp at the edges, probably some problem with the lens? --Shansov.net 16:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 23:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no QI for me.--Fischer.H 18:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough regarding the resolution. --Smial 12:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support vielleicht kein FP aber sicher QI --Ralf Roletschek 13:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Could be better, but good at 300% of full screen size on my laptop, so I think it's good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 10:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 08:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Paris Orlando 19:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC))