Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 06 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Keplerstraße_5_in_Tübingen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Building in Keplerstraße in Tübingen --Dktue 09:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unbalanced composition + poor exposure. --Remontees 22:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO good enough for QI. --XRay 08:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 10:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction is needed. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others --Moroder 09:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted XRay 16:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Hegelbau_in_Tübingen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hegelbau in Tübingen --Dktue 09:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Poor exposure. --Remontees 22:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Well, IMHO the perspective or lens distortion correction could be improved (there are some sightly slanted and bend lines here and there in the building), but the exposure seems OK: there is shadow on the street and sunlight on the upper parts, that’s how it was and the photo should show that, and overall the photo is OK and gives a good impression of the building and the trees before it. --Aristeas 11:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me (I don't think exposure bracketing should be compulsory for QIC under these conditions --Moroder 09:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 16:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Lesquin_hotel_de_ville_beffroi.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Belfry of the town hall of Lesquin, France --Velvet 07:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I'm not a fan of the brightness + electric cable in the foreground. --Remontees 21:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The brightness is really fine (only the smallest parts are overexposed, in general exposure and colours are very good), and Commons is mostly interested in documentary photos, so the cable should not be a problem for QI. --Aristeas 09:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others --Moroder 09:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 16:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Nordex_Windmill.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Windmill made by Nordex --Jonadrews 18:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Photo taken from too far away + you can't fully see the blades or the base of the wind turbine. --Remontees 21:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 10:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Sky is a little noisy, but a good photo. -- Ikan Kekek 07:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others --Moroder 09:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 16:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Ragondin_(Myocastor_coypus)_-_tête_(5).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Head of coypu (Myocastor coypus) in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 10:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Poor exposure. --Remontees 22:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --XRay 08:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine for me. --Palauenc05 10:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I'm happy with exposure --PsamatheM 21:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice photo. -- Ikan Kekek 07:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 07:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Vodopády_Satiny_in_January_2021_12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Natural monument Vodopády Satiny (Satina waterfalls) Czechia in January 2021 --T.Bednarz 00:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Lack of light. --Remontees 22:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • There is some corner unsharpness, but exposure is IMHO OK. --C messier 21:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per C messier. -- Ikan Kekek 07:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others --Moroder 09:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others --Palauenc05 09:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 16:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Charing_Cross_Coonoor_Road_Ooty_Nilgiris_Dec16_DSC02490.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Charing Cross and Coonoor Road, Ooty, India --Tagooty 06:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Poor exposure + quite bad composition. --Remontees 22:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I request other opinions, please. --Tagooty 16:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Saint_Jerome_church_in_La_Capelle-Bleys_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Jerome church in La Capelle-Bleys, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 05:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose The sky is a bit noisy. --F. Riedelio 10:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose The sky is a little bit noisy and the bell tower is a bit blurry --Remontees 22:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
     Support Yes, but IMHO neither the noise nor the little softness is sufficient to decline this photo right away; overall it’s good and nice. (Of course I would prefer some denoising in the sky, too, but to prevent this photo from being delined right away I have to change this to ‘discuss’.) --Aristeas 11:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The cited noise and blur are very marginal. -- Ikan Kekek 07:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted XRay 16:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)