Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 14 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Macaca_fascicularis_looking_at_the_observer_-_front_view_smooth_green_bokeh.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Macaca fascicularis (crab-eating macaque) looking at the observer, front view with smooth bokeh, at the temple of Don Som, Si Phan Don, Laos. --Basile Morin 11:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 11:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support This needs to be replaced with the goofy looking pic on Crab-eating macaque wiki page --Harsh 2580 02:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think you need to crop off RHS --Charlesjsharp 17:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Great quality --Blood Red Sandman 01:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 07:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm not seeing room for a crop on the right side. Great portrait, possible FP. Very bright on the right side, but that's not bothering at least 4 voters here and isn't bothering me. -- Ikan Kekek 10:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Krakow_2018_13.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Portal at 24 Kanonicza street, entrance to Górków Palace, Kraków --Scotch Mist 10:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Great photo from a beautiful city. Unfortunately, the main subject is cropped. --Blood Red Sandman 22:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Blood Red Sandman: - considered far edges of portal to be of relatively minor importance but have now uploaded re-cropped image from original to reveal 'complete portal' --Scotch Mist 06:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. A tad tight to he edges but imo still a quality image, well done :) --Blood Red Sandman 01:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Presume this means the previous decline\oppose is no longer valid!?! --Scotch Mist 15:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 08:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support For me too -- Spurzem 15:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me --Jakubhal 11:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Informatie_over_de_zwerfkei_(Smâlandgraniet)_uit_Smâland,_op_grens_van_Nijemirdum-Oudemirdum._10-06-2020_(actm.)_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Information sign about the boulder (Smâland granite) from Smâland, in the south of Sweden, on the border of Nijemirdum / Oudemirdum.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 06:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • What is the significance of the boulder? --Harsh 2580 21:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Changing to discuss, which I assume was the intent here. --Blood Red Sandman 22:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. More information would certainly be welcome, but I don't think the lack of more information would make this not a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 00:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

File:File_St._Gallus_IMG_6248.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Katholische Pfarrkirche St. Gallus, barocker Saalbau 1765, Großfischlingen, Rheinland-Pfalz, Deutschland --Fischer.H 16:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Tower is hanging a bit to the right --Michielverbeek 17:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I checked the alignment of the church tower and found that the tower is exactly straight and has no inclination. --Fischer.H 08:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have added some notes before sending to CR --Michielverbeek 05:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment A good photo, but the tower is indeed inclined to the right. In addition, the photo is a bit dark; making it brighter (and compressing the highlights a bit to prevent the clouds from being blown) would improve it. --Aristeas 14:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Fischer.H 16:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you very much! IMHO even better and good quality now. --Aristeas 11:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Scotch Mist 06:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Pontiac_Performance_Racing_Team.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Pontiac Performance Racing Team is a fielded racing team competing in the upcoming ACAR Automovilisimo Series. Shoot at Independence Square, Accra, Ghana. This is an image with the theme "Africa on the Move or Transport". By User:Jeff Unoda --Kritzolina 17:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mdaniels5757 17:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF a bit narrow for QI imho --Sandro Halank 19:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm OK with the composition, but there's magenta CA on various edges. -- Ikan Kekek 05:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support slight overexposure resp. somewhat too high contrast, but regarding the very difficult lighting situation still acceptable. Just like the overexposed parts of the image, the small amounts of CA are located in irrelevant areas. Excellent use of low DOF. --Smial 10:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial Blood Red Sandman 23:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Тень_горы_Бештау_на_облаках_и_ее_Брокенский_призрак.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wiki Loves Earth 2020. --Ganzikov 13:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Oversaturared. Could do with a bit more sharpness. --Ermell 13:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree, but with everything else I think it's still a QI IMO. --Mdaniels5757 20:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. --Ermell 05:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus too much to the foreground a higher f-value would havbe been better --Michielverbeek 05:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Solid QI to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 06:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose nice place, but per Ermell. --EV Raudtee 14:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The foreground is too lost in shadow, with the warmth of the low sun only enriching small patches in the distance. The big patches of relative darkness are too distracting. --Bobulous 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I spent a while looking at it again today, and the mix of tones seemed balanced this time. So I'm reversing my previous vote. Sharpness seems fine, near and far, and sky saturation looks fine to me (resembles the sort of blend you get with a polarizer). --Bobulous (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good points for and against; boils down to a judgement call. For me, it's a QI. Blood Red Sandman 12:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)