Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 03 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Batam,_Indonesia,_2010-12-01,_DD_17.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Ferry terminal, Batam, Indonesia --Poco a poco 14:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 17:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing is sharp, underexposed, dull light, crop should be tighter. --Kallerna 22:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low sharpness, JPEG artifacts. --XRay 08:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 17:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 17:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Eurovelo,_Zadar_(P1080749).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Eurovelo direction sign in Zadar, Croatia --MB-one 18:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose tighter crop needed. --Kallerna 09:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Crop is mostly individulal, QI is more about the technical aspects of photographs. --Granada 11:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 06:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Crop is fine. It's not like there's a tremendous amount of space on either side. Good composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 17:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 17:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Badlands-Petrified_Forest-National_Park-Arizona1139.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona, USA --Poco a poco 12:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality --Navneetsharmaiit 14:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall low quality. --Kallerna 08:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low level of detail despite fairly low resolution. --Peulle 14:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. I don't know what caused the problems, but they look to me like what's been identified as JPG artifacts or oversharpening in other photos. Definitely a pretty scene but not a QI, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 17:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 17:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Monasterio_de_Andechs,_Alemania_2012-05-01,_DD_14.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Monastery of Andechs, Germany --Poco a poco 11:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 15:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlights and chromatic aberration. --Ermell 20:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've uploaded a new version and removed the (IMHO pretty slight) CA, about the highlights, there is not much I can do, it isn't a HDR image. I still believe that the blown areas are minor, Poco a poco 13:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 22:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 06:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Pierre André Leclercq 23:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The room seems distorted, especially in the foreground -- Spurzem 18:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 17:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Giza_pyramid_complex,_Giza,_Egypt7.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Great Pyramid and Khafra Pyramid, Giza, Egypt --Poco a poco 11:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite small img with low sharpness. Halo effect due shadow processing. --Kallerna 22:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dull light and not very sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 06:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 12:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Mdaniels5757 19:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Giza_pyramid_complex,_Giza,_Egypt5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Giza pyramid complex, Giza, Egypt --Poco a poco 11:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing is sharp,  Underexposed, small. --Kallerna 22:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kallerna. -- Ikan Kekek 06:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Peulle 12:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Mdaniels5757 19:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Église_Saint-Étienne_(Dambach-la-Ville)_(1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint-Maurice church in Dambach-la-Ville (Bas-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 07:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 07:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can only see the roof of the church and some cloudy, dull sky. --Kallerna 09:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Really annoying to look at because of the light, but I think it's acceptable as a photographic representation of how the church looked that day. -- Ikan Kekek 06:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO it’s OK that we can see only the roof – the photo shows the situation of the church mid in the village. The light is not great, but OK. --Aristeas 10:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too strong noise reduction led to very low level of detail. --Augustgeyler 10:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO it's acceptable.--Pierre André Leclercq 21:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 06:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 17:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Διαβατικό_Πίκρης_5865.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination An archway in Pikris, Crete. --C messier 09:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 04:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose strong CA, bad light. --Kallerna 09:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't see what is wrong with the light ( @Kallerna: please explain) and CA is irrelevant imo --Moroder 10:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm OK with the light, but I think the purple wires shouldn't be purple and need to be fixed. And while they're being fixed, the purple fringes on the roofs should also be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek 06:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I just would like to second Ikan’s well-balanced opinion and request to fix the purple fringes. --Aristeas 10:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA and blown sky.--Peulle 12:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 17:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Tuning_World_Bodensee_2018,_Friedrichshafen_(OW1A0261).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Volkswagen Amarok of Simon Motorsport at Tuning World Bodensee 2018 --MB-one 17:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 06:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad light, busy background. --Kallerna 09:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad lighting. Perhaps it could be improved a bit. -- Spurzem 14:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 17:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Paris_-Musée_national_du_Moyen-âge_-_Crosseron_-_Vierge_à_l'Enfant_encadrée_de_deux_anges.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Paris -Musée national du Moyen-âge - Crosseron - Vierge à l'Enfant encadrée de deux anges (by Thesupermat) --Sebring12Hrs 18:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 21:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much color noise, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 16:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Ikan Kekek: I canceled the white balance. Is it better now ? If not, I will put the file with white balance back. --Sebring12Hrs 09:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, it's better in that the background, while it could still be smoother, isn't as noisy. But is the color true? I would think it could be possible to change the white balance of the subject without doing anything to the background. -- Ikan Kekek 12:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment While I'm still waiting for a reply to my question, I've deleted my vote because I think this is good enough to be a QI if the color is true. -- Ikan Kekek 18:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think colors are more realistics on this version. The first version has some of purple CAs, or something purple on the white, that is not good at all. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, cool. -- Ikan Kekek 03:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 10:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise. Level of detail is low due to intense noise-reduction. --Augustgeyler 21:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 22:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Unsure about the white balance, but it doesn't look completely wrong. The revised version presented in the meantime has been a complete failure. --Smial 00:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful and good -- Spurzem 15:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful work of goldsmith --Pierre André Leclercq 16:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 09:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 8 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Mdaniels5757 19:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)