Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 08 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Brussels_-_Basilica_Koekelberg_-_Stained_glass_windows.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stained glass window of the Basilica Koekelberg --Horst J. Meuter 15:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Sollte das Fenster aber nicht ein bisschen dunkler und kontrastreicher sein? -- Spurzem 17:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree. There are strong artefacts! --Berthold Werner 18:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too much color noise. -- Ikan Kekek 21:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per the others.--Peulle 08:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination Fratercula arctica sitting --Sonya7iv 08:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Fischer.H 09:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree Oversharpened, so sharpening artifacts everywhere and noise also sharpened resp. increased. --Smial 11:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment You're getting quite a lot a criticism for oversharpening on all your excellent images. Might be worth looking at a revised processing process. --Charlesjsharp 11:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO it's QI anyway.--Palauenc05 09:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Palauenc05 --Milseburg 10:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per the above. --S.Hinakawa 13:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 11:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Mount_Machhapuchhre-4589.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mount Machhapuchhre from Chomrong --Bijay chaurasia 07:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. The foreground is a bit dark, but the subject is well lit. --Peulle 07:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree.An amazing motif. But I think there is too much darkness. --Milseburg 13:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Artistic license. I'd allow it. -- Ikan Kekek 08:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Milseburg. --Fischer.H 15:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan Kekek --PJDespa (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 11:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Ainažu_mols_saulrietā.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aiznaži breakwater, by User:Tomscaune --Papuass 12:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA on the grass, fixable? --Pulsarwind 16:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Pulsarwind Sebring12Hrs (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC).
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination Fratercula arctica on the rocks --Sonya7iv 10:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Milseburg 11:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree Oversharpened. --Smial 11:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I still feel this meets the QI bar. --S.Hinakawa 13:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Fischer.H 15:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 11:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Pfau_in_Schwärzloch_bei_Tübingen_16.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Peacock in Schwärzloch near Tübingen --Dktue 22:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose over-processed --Charlesjsharp 11:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Data volume too low. --Fischer.H 15:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 11:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)